Partially Granted
12 partially granted decisions from Milan (IT) Local Division.
Partially Granted Decisions
12 cases | Page 1 of 1
Cardo Systems, Ltd. v.Shenzhen Asmax Infinite Technology Co., Ltd. and Hong Kong Yiheng International Technology Co., Limited
This UPC CFI decision addresses a procedural hurdle in an infringement case, specifically the successful completion of service against a defendant domiciled in China. The court found that despite multiple rejections by Chinese authorities due to minor formal issues, the claimant's attempts complied with The Hague Service Convention and UPC Rules of Procedure. Consequently, the court declared the service valid, allowing the substantive infringement proceedings to move forward without further delays.
Morello Forni Italia S.r.l. v.Gastroteam Abbe AB
In a significant default judgment, the UPC Local Division of Milan found both Gastroteam Abbe AB and Salvatore Marciuliano liable for infringing EP 3691454 B1, which covers pizza dough shaping methods and apparatus. The court granted an injunction and awarded provisional damages totaling €56,000, alongside a penalty per infringing product. This case highlights the procedural rigor of UPC default judgments, emphasizing that even when a defendant is absent, the claimant must meet the full burden of proof.
3V Sigma s.p.a. v.ACEF s.r.l.; AGA s.r.l.
This UPC decision addresses a dispute over the confidentiality of documents gathered during evidence protection proceedings (discovery). The Tribunal ruled that while certain commercial and non-relevant technical documents must remain confidential, a structured 'confidentiality club' was established. This ruling provides clear guidance on how to balance trade secret protection with the procedural rights of parties in UPC litigation.
Pirelli Tyre s.p.a. v.Kingtyre Deutschland GmbH, Tianjin Kingtyre Group Co., Ltd.
This UPC decision addressed a complex infringement case involving Pirelli Tyre s.p.a. and two Kingtyre entities regarding patent EP2519412. A settlement was reached between Pirelli and one defendant, Kingtyre Deutschland GmbH, leading the Court to confirm this agreement under Rule 365 RoP. Crucially, the Court allowed the litigation to continue against the second defendant, Tianjin Kingtyre Group Co., Ltd., while also granting a partial reimbursement of court fees for the claimant.
Oerlikon Textile GmbH & CO KG v.Bhagat Textile Engineers
This UPC costs decision addressed the reimbursement of litigation expenses following a successful infringement action. The Tribunal upheld the cost-sharing ratio established in the merits judgment (80% borne by the defendant). However, applying proportionality principles, the court significantly reduced the recoverable legal fees requested by Oerlikon Textile GmbH & CO KG, ultimately awarding a total of €77,064.65 to the claimant.
Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson v.Asustek Computer Inc.
This Milan Local Division case involved a complex situation where an infringement action and associated revocation counterclaims were partially withdrawn due to one defendant's insolvency. The Court allowed the withdrawal against the insolvent party (Digital River) but maintained the proceedings against the remaining defendants (Asustek and Arvato). Crucially, the court applied principles of fairness and equity, ruling that both Ericsson and Digital River should bear their own costs related to these withdrawals, despite conflicting claims.
Dainese S.p.A. v.Alpinestars S.p.A.; Alpinestars Research S.p.A.; Motocard Bike S.l.
Dainese S.p.A. sought leave to limit its infringement claims from two patents (EP4072364 and EP3498117) after an adverse EPO decision restricted the scope of one patent. The UPC Milan Local Division granted this request unconditionally, confirming that a limitation of claim is a valid form of case amendment under Rule 263(3) RoP. This ruling clarifies that when a claimant limits its claims rather than withdrawing the entire action, the proceedings continue against the defendant regarding the remaining patents, and cost allocation is deferred until the final judgment.
Pirelli Tyre S.p.A. v.Tianjin Kingtyre Group Co., Ltd. and Kingtyre Deutschland GmbH
In a critical case concerning motorcycle tires, Pirelli Tyre successfully obtained provisional measures from the UPC Local Division in Milan against Tianjin Kingtyre and Kingtyre Deutschland. Facing an imminent trade fair where infringing products were set to be displayed, Pirelli secured an order for the seizure and delivery of contested goods. This ruling underscores the UPC's ability to provide rapid interim relief in complex infringement cases while maintaining procedural safeguards.
Pirelli Tyre S.p.A. v.Sichuan Yuanxing Rubber Co., Ltd.
Pirelli Tyre sought provisional measures against Sichuan Yuanxing Rubber Co., Ltd. and CCPIT ahead of a major trade show, alleging that the respondent was selling infringing motorcycle tyres. The UPC Court of First Instance granted seizure and delivery of the contested products and promotional material to prevent further commercialization during the event. This decision allows Pirelli to secure evidence while reserving the final determination of infringement for the merits phase.
Oerlikon Textile GmbH & CO KG v.Bhagat Textile Engineers
Oerlikon Textile successfully sued Bhagat Textile Engineers for infringing its patent covering a false twist texturing machine. The Milan Local Division found infringement and issued an injunction prohibiting the sale and promotion of the infringing machine in Italy and Germany. Furthermore, the court imposed a penalty of 12,000 Euro per violation episode and awarded Oerlikon interim damages of 15,000 Euro.
A. Menarini Diagnostics s.r.l. v.Insulet Corporation
In a procedural order concerning provisional measures, the UPC addressed a request for confidentiality protection. The Court granted access restrictions on specific technical and business information submitted by A. Menarini Diagnostics s.r.l., classifying it as confidential. While rejecting the defendant's motion that all highlighted portions were secret, the ruling established strict rules governing who could view this sensitive data. This decision reinforces the UPC's commitment to balancing urgent proceedings with robust protection of proprietary information.
Oerlikon Textile GmbH & CO KG v.Himson Engineering Private Limited
This procedural order addressed a request for confidentiality regarding sensitive documents submitted during an infringement action. The UPC ruled that certain redacted commercial data was protected as confidential information, granting access only to specific parties of the respondent's team. Conversely, a settlement agreement document was excluded from evidence entirely. This decision highlights the court's nuanced approach to balancing trade secret protection with procedural fairness in complex patent litigation.
Facing a similar IP matter?
Arctic Invent is a specialist IP firm with deep litigation expertise across India, EU, US, and UK. Our team uses data-driven strategy to build stronger cases.