Postiglione
22 IP cases indexed. Covers patent matters.
Cases Presided Over
22 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 before the Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court (Central Division, Milan Seat). The defendants applied for security for legal costs under Rule 158 RoP, arguing the claimant's financial position posed a serious risk of non-recovery. The Court partially granted the request, ordering the claimant to provide security of €75,000 within six weeks, reduced from the requested €112,000, while rejecting the claimant's argument that its SME status should preclude or further reduce the security.
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.
Fisher & Paykel Healthcare Limited v.Flexicare (Group) Limited
This procedural order from the Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court (Central Division Milan) concerns a revocation action regarding EP 4185356. The defendant (patent proprietor) sought to introduce new 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 in exceptional circumstances and the defendant should have foreseen the clarity objections.
Pari Pharma GmbH v.Koninklijke Philips N.V.
Pari Pharma GmbH brought a revocation action against Koninklijke Philips N.V. concerning European Patent No. EP 3 397 329, titled 'Air-flow in a nebulizer head,' which was registered with unitary effect in Germany and France. The Court found that claim 1 of the patent as granted lacked novelty over prior art document WO 2017/102308 A1 (D1), but held that the amended claim 1 of Auxiliary Request 2 was inventive and valid. The revocation action was rejected insofar as the patent was maintained as amended by Auxiliary Request 2, with each party bearing their own costs.
bioMérieux UK Limited v.Labrador Diagnostics LLC
The Central Division Milan of the Unified Patent Court consolidated a revocation action and a counterclaim for revocation brought by bioMérieux group companies against European Patent EP 3 756 767 B1 (owned by Labrador Diagnostics LLC), concerning modular point-of-care devices. The Court rejected the revocation action and maintained the patent as amended according to Auxiliary Request 3, finding that the Main Request and Auxiliary Requests 1 and 2 contained added subject-matter. Costs were apportioned equitably, with bioMérieux ordered to pay two-thirds of Labrador's legal costs (EUR 400,000), and Labrador's request for confidentiality of the agreed costs amount was dismissed.
Herbert Smith Freehills Kramer LLP v.Insulet Corporation and EOFLOW Co., Ltd.
Herbert Smith Freehills Kramer LLP applied under Rule 262.1(b) RoP for access to redacted versions of documents filed in the main proceedings between Insulet Corporation and EOFLOW Co., Ltd. concerning EP4201327. The Judge Rapporteur partially granted the request, ordering the parties to provide only the redacted application and objection submissions, but denying access to the exhibits attached to those submissions.
Bodycap, Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique (CNRS) and Université de Rennes v.EPO
The patent proprietors of European patent EP3691518 appealed the EPO's rejection of their request for unitary effect. The rejection stemmed from an incorrect address for one of the three proprietors in the unitary effect request and a four-day delay in remedying the irregularity. The court rejected the appeal, holding that the deadline under Rule 7.3 of the Rules on Unitary Patent Protection is strict and non-extendable, and that interlocutory revision under Rule 91 RoP does not apply to Rule 97(1) proceedings.
Novartis AG v.Zentiva K.S. and Zentiva Portugal, LDA
This is a decision on costs before the Central Division Milan of the Unified Patent Court concerning Novartis AG's claim for legal cost compensation following the dismissal of Zentiva's application to intervene in related proceedings. Novartis claimed €38,000 in costs but failed to adequately substantiate the proportionality and reasonableness of hiring five law firms to defend against a single intervention application. The court awarded only €3,000, the amount undisputed by Zentiva, finding that Novartis had not met its burden of proof under Rule 156.1 RoP.
EOFLOW Co., Ltd. v.Insulet Corporation
This case before the Milan Central Division of the Unified Patent Court concerned a revocation action filed by EOFLOW against Insulet's European patent EP4201327 (relating to a fluid delivery device for insulin pumps), along with Insulet's counterclaim for infringement against EOFLOW's EOPatch/GlucoMen Day Pump. The court addressed issues including the requirements for issuing a decision by default, the interpretation of patent claim language, and the application of cost caps under Article 1(3) of the Administrative Committee's decision. The court ultimately found infringement of claim 1 of EP4201327, issued injunctive relief, ordered information provision, product recall, and damages, with EOFLOW bearing the costs.
Insulet Corporation v.EOFLOW Co., Ltd.
This case before the Milan Central Division of the Unified Patent Court concerned European patent EP4201327 (relating to fluid delivery devices for insulin pumps). EOFLOW sought revocation of the patent, while Insulet filed a counterclaim for infringement based on EOFLOW's EOPatch insulin pump. The Court issued a decision by default against EOFLOW on the revocation action, upheld the patent, found infringement by EOFLOW, and ordered injunctive relief, information disclosure, product recall, and damages with penalty payments for non-compliance.
bioMérieux UK Limited, bioMérieux SA, bioMérieux Deutschland GmbH, bioMérieux Italia S.p.A., bioMérieux Austria GmbH, bioMérieux Portugal Lda., bioMérieux Benelux BV v.Labrador Diagnostics LLC
This is a procedural order issued by the Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court (Central Division Milan) on 18 July 2025, following an interim conference in two related revocation proceedings concerning European Patent EP 3 756 767 B1 owned by Labrador Diagnostics LLC. The order addresses procedural matters including the narrowing of invalidity attacks, structuring of the oral hearing, and setting deadlines for further submissions by the parties.
bioMérieux UK Limited and bioMérieux SA et al. v.Labrador Diagnostics LLC
Procedural order issued by the Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court (Central Division Milan) in revocation proceedings concerning European Patent EP 3 756 767 B1 owned by Labrador Diagnostics LLC. Following an interim conference, the court directed bioMérieux to narrow down its approximately 50 invalidity attacks and 16 prior art citations to a manageable number, particularly focusing on Auxiliary Requests 1, 2, and 3, and ordered both parties to provide specific submissions and cost estimates by set deadlines.
Maschio Gaspardo S.p.A. v.Spiridonakis Bros GP
Maschio Gaspardo S.p.A., an Italian agricultural equipment manufacturer and proprietor of European Patent EP 1 998 604 concerning a reversible tool for agricultural subsoilers, brought an infringement action against the Greek company Spiridonakis Bros GP for allegedly offering, distributing, and advertising a counterfeit product called the 'Bellota tool.' The defendant failed to enter proceedings after being served in absentia, prompting the Central Division Milan to issue a decision by default. The Court granted a permanent injunction, information orders, and cost awards against the defendant.
EOFLOW Co., Ltd. v.Insulet Corporation
This case before the Milan Central Division of the Unified Patent Court concerned parallel revocation and infringement proceedings regarding European patent EP4201327 (unitary effect EP4201327C0) owned by Insulet Corporation, relating to fluid delivery devices for insulin pumps. EOFLOW sought revocation of the patent for lack of novelty and inventive step, while Insulet counterclaimed for infringement based on EOFLOW's EOPatch/GlucoMen Day Pump product. The Court revoked the patent in its entirety for lack of novelty and inventive step, and issued a decision by default against EOFLOW on the infringement counterclaim due to its failure to file a Reply, ordering injunctive relief, information disclosure, product recall, and damages with penalty payments.
Pfizer Inc. and others v.GlaxoSmithKline Biologicals SA
This procedural order concerns revocation proceedings before the Milan Central Division of the Unified Patent Court regarding EP 4 183 412 (RSV F protein compositions). Following the parties' joint request, the court allowed the withdrawal of the revocation action and counterclaim for revocation filed by Pfizer against GlaxoSmithKline Biologicals SA, declared the proceedings closed, and ordered reimbursement of 60% of the court fees to the claimants/counterclaimants.
Pfizer Inc. and others v.GlaxoSmithKline Biologicals SA
This procedural order from the Central Division Milan of the Unified Patent Court concerns the withdrawal of a revocation action and counterclaim for revocation filed by various Pfizer entities against GlaxoSmithKline Biologicals SA regarding EP 4 183 412 (RSV F protein compositions). Both parties jointly requested the withdrawal, which the court allowed, declared the proceedings closed, and ordered reimbursement of 60% of the court fees to the Claimants/Counterclaimants, with no cost decision required.
Pfizer Inc. and others v.GlaxoSmithKline Biologicals SA
This procedural order concerns a revocation action filed by multiple Pfizer entities against GlaxoSmithKline Biologicals SA regarding EP 4 183 412 (RSV F protein compositions). Prior to closure of the written procedure, Pfizer requested withdrawal of both the revocation action and its counterclaim for revocation, with Glaxo's consent. The court allowed the withdrawal, declared the proceedings closed, ordered no cost decision, and directed reimbursement of 60% of the court fees to Pfizer.
Pfizer Inc. and others v.GlaxoSmithKline Biologicals SA
This procedural order concerns a revocation action filed by multiple Pfizer entities against GlaxoSmithKline Biologicals SA regarding European Patent EP 4 183 412 (RSV F protein compositions). Prior to the closure of the written procedure, Pfizer requested withdrawal of the revocation action and counterclaim for revocation, with reimbursement of 60% of court fees, and Glaxo consented. The Court allowed the withdrawal, declared the proceedings closed, ordered reimbursement of 60% of court fees, and set the value in dispute at more than EUR 50,000,000.
GlaxoSmithKline Biologicals SA v.Pfizer Europe MA EEIG and Others
GlaxoSmithKline Biologicals SA filed a patent infringement action against 14 Pfizer entities concerning European Patent EP 4 183 412 B1 before the Düsseldorf Local Division. Prior to the closure of the written procedure, the Claimant withdrew the infringement action, and the Defendants consented to the withdrawal and did not object to a 60% reimbursement of court fees. The Court allowed the withdrawal, declared the proceedings closed, and ordered the reimbursement of 60% of the court fees (EUR 201,600) to the Claimant.
EOFLOW Co., Ltd. v.Insulet Corporation
This is a procedural order from the Central Division of the Unified Patent Court in Milan concerning a revocation action filed by EOFLOW Co., Ltd. against Insulet Corporation's European Patent EP4201327, which relates to fluid delivery devices for insulin management. The court dismissed EOFLOW's request for further written submissions, declared US patent 6656159 (Flaherty) inadmissible as late-filed prior art, and ordered EOFLOW to provide EUR 500,000 as security for costs within three weeks.
Insulet Corporation v.EOFLOW Co., Ltd.
Insulet Corporation, owner of European Patent EP4201327 concerning a fluid delivery device (insulin pump), sought a preliminary injunction against EOFLOW Co., Ltd. alleging that EOFLOW's 'EOPatch' insulin pump infringed its patent. The Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court (Milan Central Division) denied the application for provisional measures, finding significant doubts regarding the validity of the patent in light of prior art (US'994), which appeared to disclose all features of claim 1. The applicant was ordered to bear the costs of the proceedings.
Insulet Corporation v.EOFLOW Co. Ltd (Request for Intervention by A. Menarini Diagnostics s.r.l.)
This procedural order from the Central Division Milan of the Unified Patent Court concerns a request by A. Menarini Diagnostics s.r.l. to intervene in provisional measures proceedings brought by Insulet Corporation against EOFLOW Co. Ltd regarding European Patent EP4201327. The Court first overruled Insulet's preliminary objection that the intervention application was inadmissible because it was filed in hard copy rather than electronically, finding that the CMS lacked a workflow for third-party interventions. On the merits, the Court rejected the intervention request, holding that intervention in interim injunction proceedings is only available in exceptional cases and that Menarini could adequately protect its interests in parallel proceedings before the Local Division Milan.
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.