Uwe Schwengelbeck
13 IP cases indexed. Covers patent matters.
Cases Presided Over
13 cases indexed | Page 1 of 1
Insulet Corporation v.EOFLOW Co., Ltd.
Insulet Corporation successfully sought enforcement measures against EOFLOW Co., Ltd. regarding violations of prior injunctions concerning the supply of infringing fluid delivery devices. The UPC Court of First Instance ruled that EOFLOW was in breach of its obligations, leading to a significant penalty payment being imposed. This decision underscores the strict nature of compliance with interim and final injunctive relief within the Unified Patent Court system.
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.
Koninklijke Philips N.V. v.Belkin Limited, Belkin International, Inc., Belkin GmbH
This UPC appellate decision addressed a penalty payment case stemming from an initial disclosure order in an infringement action involving Philips and Belkin regarding patent EP 2 867 997. The court confirmed the validity of imposing a daily penalty for non-compliance, even if compliance is eventually achieved late. Crucially, it reinforced the obligation to disclose manufacturer prices under Art. 67 EPC, providing clear guidance on procedural enforcement and disclosure requirements in UPC litigation.
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.
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.
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.A. Menarini Diagnostics s.r.l.
Insulet Corporation sought provisional measures against A. Menarini Diagnostics regarding the infringement of its insulin patch pump patent (EP 4201327). The Court dismissed Insulet's application, finding that the necessary cumulative evidence—including a sufficient degree of certainty regarding validity and imminent infringement—was not met. This decision underscores the high procedural bar required to obtain interim relief in UPC proceedings, particularly when faced with multiple validity challenges.
Koninklijke Philips N.V. v.Belkin Limited, Belkin GmbH, Belkin International, Inc.
This UPC appellate decision addressed a request for provisional measures concerning an infringement case involving Philips and Belkin regarding inductive power transfer technology (EP 2 867 997). The court ruled on the conditions necessary to grant a stay of execution, emphasizing that the application must be self-sufficient for preliminary review. Crucially, the decision also clarified the legal limitations on holding company directors liable as secondary infringers under EPC Article 63, while ultimately granting the stay against specific individuals.
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.
Insulet Corporation v.A. Menarini Diagnostics s.r.l.
This procedural order addressed an application by Eoflow Co Ltd to intervene in a provisional measures case brought by Insulet Corporation against A. Menarini Diagnostics s.r.l. The Court ultimately dismissed the intervention request. The ruling emphasized the UPC's commitment to efficiency and speedy decision-making, particularly in urgent interim injunction proceedings, even when procedural rules allow for third-party participation.
Insulet Corporation v.A. Menarini Diagnostics s.r.l.
In this procedural order concerning provisional measures, the UPC dismissed an application by Eoflow Co Ltd to intervene in a dispute between Insulet Corporation and A. Menarini Diagnostics s.r.l. The intervener, who manufactured the disputed product, sought to support the defendant against the injunction request. The Court determined that allowing the intervention would excessively slow down the urgent provisional measures proceeding, especially since the intervener was already involved in parallel litigation before the Central Division.
A. Menarini Diagnostics s.r.l. v.Insulet Corporation
In a procedural order concerning provisional measures, the UPC addressed a request for confidentiality protection. The Court granted access restrictions on specific technical and business information submitted by A. Menarini Diagnostics s.r.l., classifying it as confidential. While rejecting the defendant's motion that all highlighted portions were secret, the ruling established strict rules governing who could view this sensitive data. This decision reinforces the UPC's commitment to balancing urgent proceedings with robust protection of proprietary information.
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.