Andrea Postiglione
20 IP cases indexed. Covers patent matters.
Cases Presided Over
20 cases indexed | Page 1 of 1
La Siddhi Consultancy Limited v.Athena Pharmaceutiques SAS, Substipharm
This order concerns a revocation action regarding European Patent No. 3 592 333 (UP) before the Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court, Central Division (Milan Seat). The defendants filed an application under Rule 158 RoP requesting security for legal costs in the amount of 112,000 €, citing the claimant's weak financial position and the risk that a costs order would be difficult to enforce. The claimant opposed the application, requesting its dismissal or, alternatively, a reduction of the security amount based on its status as an SME.
Fisher & Paykel Healthcare Limited v.Flexicare (Group) Limited
This procedural order concerns a revocation action regarding European Patent EP4185356 before the Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court, Central Division Milan. The defendant (patent proprietor) sought to introduce auxiliary requests 2A to 13A into the proceedings in response to clarity objections raised by the claimant. The Court held that while the application was admissible, it was not allowable, rejecting the request because subsequent amendments are only permitted on an exceptional basis and the defendant should have foreseen the clarity objections.
Pari Pharma GmbH v.Koninklijke Philips N.V.
Pari Pharma GmbH filed a revocation action against Koninklijke Philips N.V. concerning European Patent No. EP3397329, titled 'Air-flow in a nebulizer head.' The patent, which relates to a nebulizer head and nebulizer system for providing a substance in aerosolized form, is registered with unitary effect and in force in Germany, France, and the UK. The defendant filed an application to amend the patent during the proceedings. The Court of First Instance of the Central Division (Milan) addressed issues including standing to sue under Art. 47(6) UPCA and the interpretation of schematic figures by the skilled person.
bioMérieux UK Limited v.Labrador Diagnostics LLC
This decision concerns European patent EP 3 756 767 B1 owned by Labrador Diagnostics LLC. bioMérieux UK Limited filed a revocation action against the patent, while bioMérieux SA and other bioMérieux group entities filed a counterclaim for revocation in response to an infringement action brought by Labrador Diagnostics in the Local Division Düsseldorf. The Central Division Milan addressed issues including amendments to the patent, auxiliary requests, added subject-matter, novelty, inventive step, sufficiency of disclosure, costs, and confidentiality. The court established that when a party submits numerous attacks that are unmanageable under principles of proportionality and speed, only the most promising attacks will be assessed on the merits.
Herbert Smith Freehills Kramer LLP v.1) Insulet Corporation; 2) EOFLOW Co., Ltd.
1 Milan - Central Division - First Instance - UPC_CFI_941/2025 Final Order pursuant to Rule 262.1 b) RoP of the Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court delivered on 16/10/2025 APPLICANT Herbert Smith Freehills Kramer LLP - Breite Str. 29, 40213 Düsseldorf, Germany Represent
Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique - CNRS, Bodycap, Université de Rennes v.EPO
1 UPC_CFI_628/2025 ORDONNANCE du Tribunal de première instance de la Juridiction unifiée du brevet Division Centrale (section de Milan) concernant une Action contre une décision de l’OEB (règle 97 RdP) rendue le 6 août 2025 DEMANDEURS 1) Bodycap 6, rue du docteur Laënnec 14200 -
Novartis AG v.ZENTIVA PORTUGAL, LDA, ZENTIVA K.S.
1. Art. 69 UPCA, by requiring legal costs to be proportionate and reasonable (see also Rule 152.1 RoP), establishes a legal standard that enables the judge-rapporteur to issue a decision on legal costs. One might ask whether this provision is compliant with Art. 8 and 78 UPCA, which provide for a decision to be issued in principle by a panel. It can be assumed that, once a decision on the merits has been taken, the requirements of proceedings efficiency and proportionality prevail (the deci
EOFLOW Co., Ltd. v.Insulet Corporation
- Rule 355.2 RoP requires that, before issuing a decision by default against a defendant based on a procedural violation or failure to defend, the Court must verify that the case file contains sufficient, precise and consistent evidence to enable the judgment to be issued. A decision by default cannot be issued against the defendant based solely on a procedural violation or failure to defend. - A patent has its own lexicon. However, patent terms should be interpreted following a straightfo
Insulet Corporation v.EOFLOW Co., Ltd.
- Rule 355.2 RoP requires that, before issuing a decision by default against a defendant based on a procedural violation or failure to defend, the Court must verify that the case file contains sufficient, precise and consistent evidence to enable the judgment to be issued. A decision by default cannot be issued against the defendant based solely on a procedural violation or failure to defend. - A patent has its own lexicon. However, patent terms should be interpreted following a straightfo
bioMérieux Deutschland GmbH, bioMérieux Italia S.p.A., bioMérieux SA, bioMérieux Austria GmbH, bioMérieux Benelux BV, bioMérieux Portugal, Lda. v.Labrador Diagnostics LLC
This procedural order concerns two related revocation cases before the Court of First Instance, Central Division Milan, involving European Patent EP 3 756 767 B1 owned by Labrador Diagnostics LLC. The court addressed procedural matters following an interim conference, including an opposition filed by bioMérieux France, confirmation of exhibits, and the management of an excessive number of invalidity attacks. The court directed bioMérieux to narrow its inventive step attacks and focus on specific added matter arguments, while structuring the upcoming oral hearing and setting deadlines for further submissions.
bioMérieux UK Limited v.Labrador Diagnostics LLC
This Procedural Order was issued by the Court of First Instance, Central Division Milan, on 18 July 2025, managing two related revocation proceedings concerning European Patent EP 3 756 767 B1 owned by Labrador Diagnostics LLC. The court addressed the management of bioMérieux's extensive invalidity attacks (approximately 50 attacks based on 16 prior art citations) and directed bioMérieux to narrow its arguments, preferably to three inventive step attacks and specific added matter features. The court also set deadlines for submissions and preliminary cost estimates, and outlined the structure of the upcoming oral hearing.
UPC Decision UPC-000601 v.Respondent
Before issuing a decision by default when the defendant did not even enter proceedings, factors other than the lack of opposition must be considered. Rule 355.2 RoP has a broader scope than Rule 171.2 RoP and must be interpreted in light of the front-loaded nature of UPC proceedings. This implies that, in a decision by default the Court is required to verify whether the claimant has put forward all elements in its possession to justify the legal relief sought. The
UPC Decision UPC-000670 v.Respondent
- Rule 355.2 RoP requires that, before issuing a decision by default against a defendant based on a procedural violation or failure to defend, the Court must verify that the case file contains sufficient, precise and consistent evidence to enable the judgment to be issued. A decision by default cannot be issued against the defendant based solely on a procedural violation or failure to defend. - A patent has its own lexicon. However, patent terms should be interpreted following a straightfo
GlaxoSmithKline Biologicals SA v.Respondent
1 Milan - Central Division - First Instance - central division UPC_CFI_687/2024 Procedural Order of the Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court delivered on 22/04/2025 Claimants Pfizer Inc. Pfizer Europe MA EEIG Pfizer B.V. Pfizer S.A. Pfizer Manufacturing Belgium S.A.
Pfizer SAS, Pfizer AB, Pfizer Luxembourg S.a.r.l., Pfizer Aps, Pfizer Corporation Austria GmbH, Pfizer S.r.l., Laboratórios Pfizer, Lda., Pfizer Oy v.Respondent
1 Milan - Central Division - First Instance - central division UPC_CFI_687/2024 Procedural Order of the Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court delivered on 22/04/2025 Claimants Pfizer Inc. Pfizer Europe MA EEIG Pfizer B.V. Pfizer S.A. Pfizer Manufacturing Belgium S.A
Pfizer Europe MA EEIG, Pfizer Manufacturing Belgium S.A, Pfizer Ltd, Pfizer Service Company S.R.L., Pfizer B.V., Pfizer Inc, Pfizer S.A, Pfizer Pharma GmbH v.Respondent
1 Milan - Central Division - First Instance - central division UPC_CFI_476/2024 Procedural Order of the Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court delivered on 22/04/2025 Claimants Pfizer Inc. Pfizer Europe MA EEIG Pfizer B.V. Pfizer S.A. Pfizer Manufacturing Belgium S.A.
GlaxoSmithKline Biologicals S.A. v.Respondent
1 Milan - Central Division - First Instance - central division UPC_CFI_476/2024 Procedural Order of the Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court delivered on 22/04/2025 Claimants Pfizer Inc. Pfizer Europe MA EEIG Pfizer B.V. Pfizer S.A. Pfizer Manufacturing Belgium S.A.
EOFLOW Co., Ltd. v.Insulet Corporation
1 Milan - Central Division - First Instance - central division UPC_CFI_597/2024 Procedural Order of the Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court delivered on 11/04/2025 APPLICANT EOFLOW Co., Ltd. (Applicant) - 302Ho, HUMAX VILLAGE, 216, Hwangsaeul-ro, Bundang-gu - 13595
Insulet Corporation v.EOFLOW Co., Ltd.
In the proceedings for provisional measures, the Applicant is required to provide cumulatively reasonable evidence to satisfy the Court with sufficient degree of certainty that: (i) the Applicant is entitled to initiate proceedings under Art. 47 UPCA; (ii) the patent is valid; (iii) its rights are being infringed or that such infringement is imminent (Rule 211.2 RoP). The auxiliary request to amend the patent pursuant to Rule 30.2 RoP is not admissible in the proceedings for provisional mea
EOFLOW Co., Ltd. v.Insulet Corporation
1 1 Milan - Central Division - First Instance - central division UPC_CFI_380/2024 Procedural Order of the Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court delivered on 01/10/2024 In the matter INSULET CORPORATION 100 Nagog Park, Acton, MA 01720, USA represented by its CEO Jim Holl
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.