Postiglione
22 IP cases indexed. Covers patent matters.
Cases Presided Over
22 cases indexed | Page 1 of 1
La Siddhi Consultancy Ltd. v.Athena Pharmaceutiques SAS; Substipharm
In this UPC CFI decision concerning a revocation action, the court addressed the defendants' request for security for costs against the claimant. Despite the claimant asserting SME status and arguing that such an order would restrict access to justice, the Court found the defendant's arguments regarding the claimant's financial vulnerability credible. Consequently, the court ordered the claimant to provide €75,000 in security within six weeks, setting a specific amount while rejecting the defendants' demands for higher sums or faster deadlines.
Fisher & Paykel Healthcare Limited v.Flexicare (Group) Limited
In this procedural order, the UPC Court of First Instance addressed a defendant's attempt to introduce late-filed auxiliary amendments (requests 2A to 13A) into an ongoing revocation action. The claimant argued these requests violated Rule 30.2 RoP by being introduced without proper procedure. The Court ultimately rejected the request, emphasizing that while proportionality is considered, the preclusive nature of the rules against 'little steps' amendments must be respected.
Fisher & Paykel Healthcare Limited v.Flexicare (Group) Limited
This procedural order addressed a request by the defendant to introduce subsequent, limiting auxiliary claims into a revocation action concerning a medical device patent (EP4185356). The Court emphasized its commitment to maintaining the integrity and efficiency of UPC proceedings. Despite arguing that the new amendments were merely responsive to the claimant's objections, the Court rejected them, reinforcing the strict procedural requirements for amending patents during litigation.
Pari Pharma GmbH v.Koninklijke Philips N.V.
In this UPC revocation action concerning a nebulizer head patent, the Court found that the original claim lacked novelty. However, the case demonstrated the critical importance of amendment strategies in UPC litigation. By successfully amending the claims to overcome prior art objections, the defendant managed to save the patent, illustrating how strategic adjustments can preserve IP rights even when facing significant validity challenges.
bioMérieux UK Limited v.Labrador Diagnostics LLC
In a significant decision concerning point-of-care diagnostics, the UPC Central Division rejected the revocation action brought by bioMérieux against EP 3 756 767 B1. The Court found that the patent remained valid when amended by Auxiliary Request 3 (AR 3). This ruling reinforces the importance of auxiliary requests in preserving patent rights and sets a precedent regarding the proportionality of validity challenges before the UPC.
Herbert Smith Freehills Kramer LLP v.Insulet Corporation; EOFLOW Co., Ltd.
This UPC decision addressed a request for file inspection by legal counsel (HSF Kramer LLP). The Court analyzed the need for HSF to access redacted documents from related proceedings, balancing transparency against party interests. While denying broad access to exhibits due to concerns over scoping and proportionality, the Judge Rapporteur granted limited access to key pleadings, affirming that the reasoned decision itself provides sufficient insight into the case.
Bodycap, Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique - CNRS, Université de Rennes v.EPO
This UPC decision addressed an appeal challenging the EPO's rejection of a unitary effect application for EP3691518. The claimants, including Bodycap and CNRS, sought to overturn the administrative rejection based on minor procedural errors regarding their address details. However, the UPC upheld the EPO's decision, emphasizing strict adherence to deadlines and legal certainty in the context of unitary patent procedures. This case serves as a strong reminder that procedural compliance is mandatory when applying for unitary effect.
Novartis AG v.ZENTIVA PORTUGAL, LDA; ZENTIVA K.S.
This UPC decision on costs addressed the compensation sought by Novartis following a dismissed application to intervene in a related main proceeding. The court emphasized that while legal costs must be proportionate under Art. 69 UPCA, the applicant bears the burden of proof for detailed cost substantiation. By failing to provide sufficient evidence justifying the extensive legal fees incurred across multiple firms, Novartis' claim was significantly reduced.
EOFLOW Co., Ltd. v.Insulet Corporation
This UPC decision involves a complex interplay between patent revocation and infringement claims concerning advanced medical device technology (insulin pumps). EOFLOW challenged Insulet's European Patent EP4201327, while Insulet counterclaimed for infringement. The court provided important procedural guidance regarding the issuance of default judgments and mandated a unitary approach to cost calculations in parallel proceedings. This case highlights the UPC's focus on substantive fairness alongside strict adherence to procedural rules.
Insulet Corporation v.EOFLOW Co., Ltd.
This UPC decision addresses a complex interplay between patent revocation and infringement claims concerning an insulin pump. The court provided important procedural guidance regarding the issuance of decisions by default, stressing the need for robust evidence rather than relying solely on procedural failures. Additionally, it reinforced the principle of unitary cost application when multiple parties (manufacturer and distributor) are involved in parallel litigation over the same patented technology.
bioMérieux UK Limited v.Labrador Diagnostics LLC
In this UPC revocation case, bioMérieux initiated proceedings against Labrador Diagnostics concerning patent EP 3 756 767 B1. Following an interim conference, the Court recognized that the sheer volume of invalidity attacks presented by bioMérieux was unsustainable for a focused oral hearing. The panel mandated that bioMérieux streamline its strategy, selecting only the most promising and logically consistent set of attacks to ensure procedural efficiency.
bioMérieux Deutschland GmbH, bioMérieux Italia S.p.A., bioMérieux SA, bioMérieux Austria GmbH, bioMérieux Benelux BV, bioMérieux Portugal, Lda. v.Labrador Diagnostics LLC
In this complex UPC case involving bioMérieux and Labrador Diagnostics, the Court issued a critical procedural order following an interim conference. Recognizing that the patent EP 3 756 767 B1 faced an overwhelming number of invalidity attacks, the Panel mandated that the challenging party (bioMérieux) significantly narrow its focus. This ruling emphasizes the need for legal rigor and strategic clarity in complex revocation proceedings, ensuring the oral hearing remains focused on the most promising grounds of attack.
Maschio Gaspardo S.p.A. v.Spiridonakis Bros GP
In a significant decision by default, the UPC granted Maschio Gaspardo S.p.A. an infringement declaration against Spiridonakis Bros GP regarding its reversible agricultural tool patent (EP 1998604). The court upheld the permanent injunction and established recurring penalties for continued infringement across several member states. This case highlights the strict evidentiary requirements placed on claimants pursuing default judgments in UPC proceedings, while also clarifying the scope of territoriality under Art. 26 UPCA.
INSULET CORPORATION v.EOFLOW Co., Ltd.
This UPC decision addresses a complex dispute between medical device manufacturers EOFLOW and INSULET concerning the insulin pump patent EP4201327. The case involved parallel revocation and infringement actions, alongside preliminary injunction proceedings. The court provided important procedural guidance regarding default judgments and cost caps in multi-party litigation. Practitioners should note the emphasis on literal claim interpretation and the necessity of a unitary approach when dealing with related infringers.
Pfizer Inc. v.GlaxoSmithKline Biologicals SA
In this procedural order, the Unified Patent Court allowed Pfizer and GlaxoSmithKline Biologicals SA to withdraw a revocation action concerning EP4183412. The case involved complex cross-referencing between an infringement proceeding in Düsseldorf and the revocation action in Milan. Since both parties agreed on the withdrawal and subsequent closure of the proceedings, the court granted the request while also ordering the reimbursement of 60% of the court fees paid by the withdrawing parties.
Pfizer Inc. v.GlaxoSmithKline Biologicals SA
In a procedural order, the UPC Central Division allowed Pfizer (the claimants/counterclaimants) to withdraw its revocation action against GlaxoSmithKline Biologicals SA concerning EP4183412. This decision was reached following mutual agreement between both parties. The Court also ordered the reimbursement of 60% of court fees paid by the withdrawing parties. This case highlights how procedural agreements and party consent can lead to the swift closure of complex patent litigation.
Pfizer Inc. v.GlaxoSmithKline Biologicals SA
In a procedural order concerning EP4183412, the UPC Central Division allowed Pfizer (the claimants) and GlaxoSmithKline Biologicals SA (the defendant) to withdraw their respective revocation action and counterclaim. The parties reached an agreement that rendered the patent amendment applications moot. This case highlights how mutual consent can lead to the swift closure of complex litigation in the UPC, even when significant value is at stake.
Pfizer Inc. v.GlaxoSmithKline Biologicals SA
In a procedural order concerning the revocation of EP4183412, Pfizer and GlaxoSmithKline Biologicals SA mutually agreed to withdraw the action and counterclaim. The UPC Central Division granted this request, effectively closing the proceedings. This case highlights how mutual consent can lead to the swift dismissal of complex patent litigation, even when significant value is at stake.
EOFLOW Co., Ltd. v.Insulet Corporation
This procedural order in the EOFLOW v. Insulet UPC case marks a significant step toward trial preparation. The Court closed the written phase and scheduled an Interim Conference to focus on claim construction, particularly regarding the term 'pass through'. Furthermore, the Court strictly enforced rules of evidence by deeming US patent '159 inadmissible, emphasizing the need for parties to consolidate their arguments early in UPC proceedings.
GlaxoSmithKline Biologicals SA v.Pfizer Europe MA EEIG, Pfizer Manufacturing Belgium NV, Pfizer Pharma GmbH, Pfizer Corporation Austria GmbH, Pfizer SA, Pfizer Aps, Pfizer Oy, Pfizer SAS, Pfizer S.r.l., Pfizer B.V., Laboratórios Pfizer, Lda., Pfizer AB, Pfizer Luxembourg S.a.r.l., Pfizer Service Company S.r.l.
In a case involving GlaxoSmithKline Biologicals SA and various Pfizer entities, the UPC Local Division in Düsseldorf allowed the Claimant to withdraw its patent infringement action against the Defendants. This decision followed the mutual agreement of both parties to terminate the proceedings. Crucially, the court also ruled to reimburse the Claimant 60% of the substantial court fees paid during the litigation. This case highlights how procedural agreements between parties can lead to swift resolution in UPC actions.
Insulet Corporation v.EOFLOW Co., Ltd.
Insulet Corporation sought a preliminary injunction against EOFLOW Co., Ltd. regarding the alleged infringement of its fluid dispensing device patent (EP4201327), which covers advanced insulin pumps. However, the UPC Court of First Instance denied the application for provisional measures. The court determined that significant doubts existed concerning the novelty and validity of Insulet's patent in light of prior art disclosures, thereby preventing the immediate granting of an injunction.
Insulet Corporation v.EOFLOW Co., Ltd.
This UPC procedural order addressed a request for intervention filed by Menarini Diagnostics s.r.l. in an interim injunction case between Insulet Corporation and EOFLOW Co., Ltd. The Court ultimately rejected the intervention, ruling that Menarini's interest was merely hypothetical and could be sufficiently defended in parallel proceedings before the Local Division Milan. This decision reinforces the strict procedural requirements for third-party intervention in fast-moving provisional measures cases.
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.