Pending
20 pending decisions from Milan (IT) Local Division.
Pending Decisions
20 cases | Page 1 of 1
Pirelli Tyre s.p.a. v.Sichuan Yuanxing Rubber Co., ltd.
This interim conference decision in the Pirelli v. Sichuan Yuanxing case sets the stage for a complex patent dispute involving tire technology. The court addressed procedural issues, including the admissibility of evidence and preliminary objections from the defendant. Crucially, the parties agreed to conduct an on-site technical examination of seized product samples during the upcoming oral hearing. This decision highlights the UPC's practical approach to evidence gathering in infringement cases.
AWM s.r.l. v.Progress Maschinen & Automation AG
This UPC CFI decision addresses a request for cost determination, which was complicated by the automatic suspensive effect of an appeal lodged against the underlying revocation counterclaim. The court clarified that Article 74(2) UPCA's mandatory suspensive effect extends to all parts of the decision, including those concerning legal costs. Consequently, rather than dismissing the application as untimely, the Court opted to stay the cost proceedings until the UPC Court of Appeal resolves the main dispute.
Agathon AG v.Intercom s.r.l., KNARR Vertriebs GmbH
This interim order in the UPC case between Agathon AG and Intercom s.r.l./KNARR Vertriebs GmbH focused heavily on procedural matters ahead of the oral hearing. The Court authorized the admission of technical drawings and samples of both infringing and prior art products, streamlining evidence presentation. Crucially, the parties agreed to allow KNARR to address validity issues during the hearing even without a formal counterclaim for revocation. This order sets clear deadlines for final briefs and prepares the case for joint discussion on infringement and validity.
Dainese S.p.A. v.Alpinestars S.p.A., Alpinestars Research S.p.A, Motocard Bike, S.L., Omnia Retail S.R.L.
This UPC decision addressed a confidential information dispute within a larger security for costs proceeding, rather than an infringement claim. Dainese sought to restrict access to its financial data, citing trade secret protection under Article 58 UPCA. The Court ultimately found a balance between protecting the claimant's sensitive information and ensuring the defendants could adequately exercise their right of defense. Access was granted to specific individuals, including Ms. Caterina Buccimazza, subject to strict confidentiality obligations.
Progress Maschinen & Automation AG v.AWM s.r.l.
This interim decision in the Milan Local Division addresses the valuation of a complex patent dispute involving Progress Maschinen & Automation AG against AWM s.r.l. The court was tasked with setting the value for cost assessment purposes, considering both infringement and revocation claims related to high-value mechanical machines. Despite disputes over sales volume and royalty rates, the judge-rapporteur set the value at EUR 2 million for each action, relying on proportionality principles due to a lack of supporting economic data.
Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson v.Asustek Computer Inc.
This decision addresses a critical procedural dispute regarding the protection of confidential information in UPC proceedings involving potential antitrust conflicts. Ericsson sought an 'external eyes only' confidentiality regime to protect sensitive licensing data from disclosure to defendants. The Panel ruled that while such regimes are theoretically possible under EU law principles, the Claimant failed to meet the strict burden of proof required by the UPC for demonstrating a concrete risk of anticompetitive harm. Consequently, the application was dismissed, but leave to appeal was granted, setting up an important precedent for future cases balancing IP protection and competition concerns.
Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson v.Asustek Computer Inc.
This UPC decision addresses a procedural dispute regarding the scope of confidentiality protection in patent litigation. Ericsson sought an 'external eyes only' regime for sensitive licensing data, arguing it was necessary to prevent antitrust conflicts. The Panel rejected this request, emphasizing that such exceptional restrictions require a high burden of proof showing concrete risks of anticompetitive harm. Although the application for review was dismissed, leave to appeal was granted, setting up a potential precedent on balancing confidentiality and competition law within the UPC.
Progress Maschinen & Automation AG v.AWM s.r.l.
This interim order in the Progress Maschinen v. Schnell case addressed several key procedural issues ahead of the main oral hearing. The court deferred a decision on the admissibility of a new patent amendment (AR4) to the Panel's assessment during the upcoming hearing. Crucially, the parties were given time to negotiate an agreement on damages and costs before proceeding with the full merits discussion. This order highlights the UPC's focus on procedural efficiency while maintaining flexibility for settlement.
Progress Maschinen & Automation AG v.AWM s.r.l.
This interim order in the Progress Maschinen & Automation AG v. Schnell s.p.a. case outlines the procedural path forward before the UPC Panel. The court addressed key issues, including the admissibility of a new patent amendment (AR4) and the production of technical evidence. Crucially, the parties were given time to negotiate settlement on infringement value and costs ahead of the scheduled oral hearing.
Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson v.ASUSTek Computer Inc.
In a complex infringement and revocation action, the UPC Milan Local Division issued a crucial procedural order regarding confidentiality. The court adopted an 'external eyes only' regime for highly sensitive documents, allowing access to unredacted information only by designated external counsel, experts, and specific individuals from each party. This decision provides a clear framework for managing trade secrets while ensuring fair trial rights in high-stakes patent litigation.
Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson v.ASUSTek Computer Inc.
This Milan Local Division order addresses a critical procedural dispute regarding the handling of highly confidential information in an infringement and revocation action. The Court established a comprehensive 'external eyes only' confidentiality regime, balancing the parties' rights to fair trial and full disclosure. This ruling is significant for practitioners as it provides clear guidance on how courts manage sensitive trade secrets within complex UPC litigation.
Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson v.ASUSTek Computer Inc.
This Milan Local Division decision addresses a critical procedural issue concerning the protection of confidential information during patent litigation. Ericsson, the Claimant, sought an 'external eyes only' regime to ensure its proprietary data remained protected while maintaining full adversarial access. The Court granted this specialized confidentiality club, allowing restricted access to unredacted documents for authorized parties and experts from both sides. This ruling provides a clear procedural pathway for managing highly sensitive trade secrets within the UPC framework.
Dainese S.p.A. v.Alpinestars Research S.p.A., ULRICH HERPICH E.K, Alpinestars S.p.A., OMNIA RETAIL S.R.L. , HORIZON MOTO 95 - MAXXESS CERGY, MOTOCARD BIKE, S.L.
This procedural order in a UPC case addressed the claimant's request for protection of confidential information. The Court found that the submitted documents met the criteria for confidentiality, recognizing their economic value and non-public nature. Crucially, the ruling balanced the fundamental right to be heard against the need to protect trade secrets by strictly limiting access to specific individuals from the involved defendants.
Dainese S.p.A. v.ALPINESTARS S.p.A., ALPINESTARS RESEARCH S.p.A., OMNIA RETAIL S.R.L., HORIZON MOTO 95 - MAXXESS CERGY, ZUND.STOFF AUGSBURG, MOTOCARD BIKE, S.L.
This procedural order addresses a request by Dainese S.p.A. to protect confidential information related to a settlement agreement reached with one of the defendants (Defendant No. 4). The UPC Local Division affirmed that this document, which details the waiver of claims in the main infringement proceeding, qualifies as protected confidential information under Article 58 UPCA and relevant rules. Consequently, access to the unredacted version was severely restricted, highlighting the court's commitment to balancing transparency with the protection of sensitive commercial dealings.
Oerlikon Textile GmbH & CO KG v.Himson Engineering Private Limited
This procedural order in the UPC case Oerlikon v Himson addresses key strategic issues in a complex infringement and revocation action concerning textile machinery. The Court confirmed that both parties' claims are narrowly focused on Claim 1, reinforcing the 'front loaded' principle of the UPC system. Furthermore, the court managed evidentiary disputes, allowing for video evidence while restricting late-stage document submissions to maintain procedural efficiency. This decision sets a clear path forward toward an oral hearing in mid-2025.
Oerlikon Textile GmbH &CO KK v.Himson Engineering Private Limited
This procedural order in the UPC case UPC_CFI_240/2023 involves Oerlikon Textile GmbH &CO KK (Claimant) against Himson Engineering Private Limited (Respondent) regarding patent EP2145848. The court addressed a scheduling conflict raised by the defendant and subsequently issued an order to postpone the Interim Conference. This highlights the UPC's procedural flexibility in managing complex litigation schedules.
Oerlikon Textile GmbH & CO KG v.Himson Engineering Private Limited
In this procedural order (UPC_CFI_240/2023), Oerlikon Textile GmbH & CO KG addressed its infringement claim against Himson Engineering Private Limited regarding patent EP2145848. The court focused heavily on case management, defining the scope of evidence and arguments for the upcoming oral hearing. Key issues included Himson's counterclaim for revocation, Oerlikon's auxiliary requests, and the admissibility of video and testimonial evidence. Due to a general strike in Italy, the interim conference was postponed.
Oerlikon Textile GmbH & CO KG v.Himson Engineering Private Limited
In this procedural order within an infringement action, Oerlikon Textile sought protection for confidential information contained in documents submitted during litigation. The UPC Court addressed two key documents: a settlement agreement (Doc n. 37) and commercial data (Doc n. 38). The court ultimately excluded the highly sensitive settlement agreement from evidence while granting Himson Engineering limited, controlled access to the redacted commercial data under strict confidentiality rules.
Oerlikon Textile GmbH & CO KG v.Bhagat Textile Engineers
Oerlikon Textile GmbH & CO KG initiated infringement proceedings against Bhagat Textile Engineers concerning a textile machinery patent (EP2145848). The case is currently in the procedural phase, with the court addressing key evidentiary issues such as whether the defendant commercialized the infringing machines. The judge issued a detailed order setting strict deadlines for both parties to submit documents related to expert reports, royalties, and settlement proposals. This ruling highlights the UPC's rigorous approach to evidence management before proceeding to trial.
Oerlikon Textile GmbH & CO KG v.Bhagat Textile Engineers
This procedural order from the UPC Court of First Instance addresses the balance between public transparency and the protection of confidential business information during an infringement case. The court confirmed that while proceedings are generally public, it retains the power to limit access during the interim conference if sensitive data is discussed. This decision provides clear guidance on how parties can manage their proprietary information within the UPC framework.
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.