Short Summary
1 Milan - Local Division UPC_CFI_472/2024 Procedural Order of the Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court delivered on 24/01/2025 Order no. ORD_68844/2024 DAINESE S.p.A. - Plaintiff - against ALPINESTARS S.p.A. - Defendant 1 - and against ALPINESTARS RESEARCH S.p
Detailed Summary
1
Milan - Local Division
UPC_CFI_472/2024
of the Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court
delivered on 24/01/2025
Order no. ORD_68844/2024
DAINESE S.p.A.
- Plaintiff -
against
ALPINESTARS S.p.A.
- Defendant 1 -
and against
ALPINESTARS RESEARCH S.p.A.
- Defendant 2 -
and against
OMNIA RETAIL S.R.L.
- Defendant 3 -
and against
HORIZON MOTO 95 MAXXESS CERGY
- Defendant 4 -
and against
ZUND.STOFF AUGSBURG
- Defendant 5 –
and against
MOTOCARD BIKE, S.L.
- Defendant 6 –
PATENT AT ISSUE
Patent no.
Proprietor/s
EP4072364
Dainese S.p.A.
EP3498117
Dainese S.p.A.
No SPC details provided
2
Patent no.
SPC details
SPC ID
National Designations
No
DECIDING JUDGE
Judge-rapporteur
Alima Zana
COMPOSITION OF PANEL – FULL PANEL
Presiding judge
Pierluigi Perrotti
Judge-rapporteur
Alima Zana
Legally qualified judge
Anna-Lena Klein
Technically qualified judge Graham Ashley
LANGUAGE OF PROCEEDINGS: English
ORDER
1 SUMMARY OF FACTS
On 2 December 2024, Dainese spa (claimant in the main proceeding) has put forward information
in its partial withdraw (App. 63772/2024), alleging its confidential nature.
With regard to said information Dainese submitted an application for protection of confidential
information under R. 262A RoP using the dedicated workflow in the CMS( 63878/2024) and
uploading a redacted versions of their written submissions.
By orders filed on 4 December 2024 and 10 January 2025 the judge rapporteur invited the other
parties to comment the application.
On 17 January 2025 the defendant n.1 requested that:
- that the Claimant's application under Rule 262A is rejected.
- in alternative:
3
b) that the Claimant is ordered to provide a revised version of the redacted
document, where only strictly sensitive information are redacted, and access to
such document is granted to Defendant.
Same and identical claims were filed by the defendant n. 6, MOTOCARD BIKE, S.L.
The Defendant 2) specified to not have any interest in knowing
No other comments were filed by the other parties.
GROUNDS OF THE ORDER
1.2.General profiles
This ruling complies with:
- the principles of flexibility, proportionality and fairness set out in Preamble 2 of the P.o.R. and the
need to protect confidential information.
-the Rule n. 58 UPCA, the Rule N. 262A RoP, the Directive (EU) 2016/943 on the protection of
undisclosed know-how and business information (trade secrets) against their unlawful acquisition,
use and disclosure;
- case law of the UPC on the protection of confidential information.
1.2. This order takes into account that:
--according to a non-strict construction in accordance with the purpose of the law, Article 58 UPCA
must be interpreted as meaning that it extends protection not only to trade secrets but also to
confidential information.
2. Nature of information
4
2.2. The Court observes that:
This document is confidential:
•
(i) is not generally known and is not available to third parties;
•
(ii) has undoubtedly of an economic value, i
•
(iii) is protected by appropriate confidentiality measu
Practitioner Note
This case demonstrates the evidentiary and procedural standards applied in patent matters before Milan (IT) Local Division. Understanding the court's reasoning in ALPINESTARS RESEARCH S.p.A, ULRICH HERPICH E.K, Alpinestars S.p.A., OMNIA RETAIL S.R.L. , HORIZON MOTO 95 - MAXXESS CERGY , MOTOCARD BIKE, S.L. vs Dainese S.p.A. is valuable context for structuring arguments or assessing risk in similar proceedings.
Related Cases
OTEC Präzisionsfinish GmbHvsSTEROS GPA INNOVATIVE S.L.
The Local Chamber Düsseldorf issued an order on March 26, 2025, in proceedings concerning European Patent EP 2 983 864 B1, relating to a method and device for surface treatment of workpieces. The applicant, OTEC Präzisionsfinish GmbH, sole proprietor of the patent, had filed an application on March 25, 2025, seeking an order for inspection and evidence preservation at the trade fair stands of the respondents at the Cologne trade fair (Köln Messe). The respondents include STEROS GPA INNOVATIVE S.L., a manufacturer of machines for drag finishing and electropolishing, and a second respondent described as a specialist dealer and customer of the first respondent.
Suinno Mobile & AI Technologies Licensing OyvsMicrosoft Corporation
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court rejected Suinno's applications for rehearing of its 12 July 2025 order and decision, which had upheld a €300,000 security for costs order and entered a default decision dismissing Suinno's infringement action against Microsoft regarding EP 2 671 173. The Court held that Suinno failed to establish a fundamental procedural defect under Art. 81(1) UPCA, as its arguments amounted to mere disagreement with the Court's reasoning rather than demonstrating a defect so serious that the same decision would not have been taken without it.
Occlutech GmbHvsLepu Medical (Europa) Cooperatief U.A. a.o.
This is a procedural order issued by the Local Chamber Düsseldorf concerning the protection of confidential information under Rule 262A of the Rules of Procedure in a patent infringement dispute involving European Patent EP 1 998 686 B2. The applicant, Occlutech GmbH, seeks interim measures against the respondents, Lepu Medical entities, for alleged patent infringement. The respondents filed an objection on August 11, 2025, and requested that certain confidential information be protected with restricted access to designated persons.
Heraeus Electronics GmbH & Co. KGvsVibrantz GmbH
This case concerns an application by Heraeus Electronics GmbH & Co. KG for re-establishment of rights (Wiedereinsetzung in den vorherigen Stand) after missing the deadline to file a cost determination application under Rule 151 of the Rules of Procedure. The underlying dispute involved European Patent No. 3 215 288, where the Local Chamber Munich had previously issued a decision on October 10, 2025, splitting costs 60% to the plaintiff and 40% to the defendant. The court granted the application for re-establishment of rights, finding that despite the general rule that lack of legal knowledge does not suffice as grounds for re-establishment, the applicant could not be held responsible for the legal error in this specific case configuration.
XXXvsAbbott Diabetes Care Inc. / MicroTech Medical (Hangzhou) Co. Ltd., et al.
1 UPC_CFI_1262/2025 UPC_CFI_ 830/2025 Order of the Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court Local Division The Hague delivered on 17/12/2025 concerning: access to file (R. 262.1(b)) Date of receipt of Application : 22/10/2025 APPLICANT/S 1) (Applicant) -
Dealing with a patent challenge?
Whether it's a Section 3(d) rejection, a post-grant opposition, or a FRAND dispute, Arctic's patent litigation team has handled it. Get a strategy call.
Disclaimer: This page contains an automated summary based on publicly available judicial records. The content is generated for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Always verify details against the original source judgment before relying on this information for any legal purpose. If you believe any information is inaccurate, please contact us.