MILAN LOCAL DIVISION
11 cases · page 1 of 1
Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. v.Shenzhen SiSensing Co., Ltd. & Others
Abbott Diabetes Care Inc., proprietor of European Patent EP 3 960 072 B1 relating to compact on-body physiological monitoring devices, sought provisional measures from the UPC Milan Local Division against five related entities (Shenzhen SiSensing, SiBionics GmbH, Sibio Technology, Sibio PTE, and Shanghai International Holding) for their planned commercialization of the GS3-R continuous glucose monitoring system. The Court granted the provisional injunction, prohibiting the respondents from infringing the patent in the relevant Contracting Member States, ordered disclosure of distribution channels, imposed capped penalty payments for non-compliance, and awarded Abbott an interim cost award of 120,000 EUR.
Nixu FL IP Protection LLC v.Amazon Web Services, Inc. et al.
The defendants, four Amazon Web Services entities belonging to the same corporate group, applied for alignment of deadlines for filing their statements of defence and counterclaims for revocation, since the statement of claim had been served on them on different dates. The claimant agreed to alignment but proposed 29 October 2026 as the common deadline, while the defendants requested 11 November 2026. The judge-rapporteur aligned all deadlines to run from 29 July 2026, the earliest date of service, ordering all defendants to file their statements of defence and counterclaims for revocation by 29 October 2026.
Biopsafe ApS v.Kaltek S.r.l.
This case concerns an application for security for costs filed by the defendant Kaltek S.r.l. in patent infringement proceedings brought by Biopsafe ApS before the Milan Local Division of the Unified Patent Court. Kaltek argued that Biopsafe's financial position, characterized by low share capital, microenterprise status, aggressive dividend distribution, and near-zero liquidity, raised a legitimate concern that any costs award would be unrecoverable. The Court dismissed the application, finding that Kaltek had not met its burden of proof, particularly given Biopsafe's recent acquisition by Medcap for approximately EUR 15.38 million and its demonstrated growth in profits and assets.
Cardo Systems, Ltd. v.Shenzhen Ziwu Chuangxin Technology Co., Ltd. and Resosport Limited
This is a procedural order from the Milan Local Division of the Unified Patent Court concerning the alignment of service dates and deadlines for filing statements of defence in a patent infringement action brought by Cardo Systems against two defendants, Ziwu and Resosport. The judge-rapporteur had ordered a notional common starting date of 10 June 2026 for all defendants, with statements of defence due by 10 September 2026. Cardo sought review of this order, arguing it granted the defendants a de facto 50-day extension inconsistent with the UPC's objectives of speed and efficiency. The Panel dismissed Cardo's application, finding the order constituted a balanced compromise that provided certainty and orderly management of the proceedings.
Primetals Technologies Austria GmbH v.Danieli & C. S.p.A.
This is a procedural order from the Milan Local Division of the Unified Patent Court (UPC) in cases UPC CFI no. 377/2025 and no. 702/2025, concerning the rectification of a clerical mistake under R. 353 RoP. The judge-rapporteur informed the parties of the Court's intention to correct an error in a prior order issued on 22 July 2026, where the value of the counterclaim for revocation was incorrectly stated as EUR 1,850,000 instead of the correct EUR 1,875,000. Both parties confirmed they had no objection to the proposed rectification, and the order was issued accordingly.
Cardo Systems, Ltd. v.Shenzhen Ziwu Chuangxin Technology Co., Ltd. and Resosport Limited
This is a procedural order from the Milan Local Division of the Unified Patent Court concerning the alignment of deadlines for filing statements of defence. Cardo Systems had filed an infringement action against Ziwu and Resosport, but while service on Ziwu was completed, service on Resosport in Hong Kong remained pending. Ziwu applied to align the deadlines, and the Court granted the request, setting a common starting date of 10 June 2026 for both defendants, with a new filing deadline of 10 September 2026.
Ltd. 13 Zahrin Street 4366241 Ra’anana – Israel v.SHENZHEN ASMAX INFINITE TECHNOLOGY Co. Ltd., HONG KONG YIHENG INTERNATIONAL TECHNOLOGY Co. Limited
DECISION
PRIMETALS TECHNOLOGIES AUSTRIA GMBH, Andreas Haberl, Preu Bohlig & Partner Rechtsanwälte mbB, Leo v.DANIELI & C. S.P.A.
order
Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson v.ASUSTeK Computer Inc. and Arvato Netherlands B.V.
Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson filed an application for provisional measures in the Milan Local Division of the UPC during ongoing main proceedings on the merits concerning EP 3 076 673 B1, a patent related to HEVC/H.265 video coding technology, against ASUSTeK Computer Inc. and Arvato Netherlands B.V. Ericsson argued urgency based on delays in the main proceedings, recent German court decisions against ASUSTeK, and ASUSTeK's launch of new allegedly infringing products. The Court dismissed the application for lack of urgency, holding that a mere increase in financial loss during ongoing proceedings is insufficient and that the applicant must demonstrate new, supervening factual circumstances indicating objective deterioration.
TELEFONAKTIEBOLAGET LM ERICSSON v.ASUSTEK COMPUTER INC. and ARVATO NETHERLANDS B.V.
Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson filed an application for provisional measures against ASUSTeK Computer Inc. and Arvato Netherlands B.V. in connection with ongoing main proceedings concerning European Patent EP 2727342 B1 related to HEVC/H.265 video coding technology. Ericsson argued urgency based on the delay of the main proceedings, recent German court decisions against ASUSTeK, and the launch of new allegedly infringing products. The Milan Local Division dismissed the application for lack of urgency, holding that Ericsson failed to demonstrate new, different, and supervening factual circumstances that would justify interim relief at this late stage of the proceedings on the merits.
Pirelli Tyre S.p.a. v.Sichuan Yuanxing Rubber Co., Ltd.
Pirelli Tyre S.p.a. sued Sichuan Yuanxing Rubber Co., Ltd. (SYR) before the Unified Patent Court (Milan Local Division) for infringement of European Patent EP 3 519 207 B1 concerning a motorcycle tyre with both on-road and off-road performance. SYR counterclaimed for revocation of the patent. The Court dismissed the counterclaim for revocation, finding the patent valid, and held that SYR had infringed the patent by offering and marketing its Helios HA-51R and HA-51F tyres at the EICMA 2024 trade fair and through its website.
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.