Executive Summary
This UPC decision addressed a procedural review concerning the connection joinder of two parallel infringement proceedings involving Insulet Corporation and EOFLOW Co., Ltd. The core dispute centered on whether consolidating the cases would violate principles of proportionality or lead to contradictory rulings. The panel ultimately approved the initial order, finding that the risk of divergent decisions was minimal due to shared judicial oversight across both divisions. This ruling reinforces the UPC's flexibility in case management while maintaining strict adherence to procedural fairness.
What the Court Held — Ratio Decidendi
The Court held that while consolidation promotes consistency and effective case management, it must adhere to principles of proportionality. The risk of contradictory decisions was deemed minimal due to the appointment of the same judges in both the Central Division and Local Division panels, thereby validating the initial procedural decision.
Practitioner Note
This decision granted relief to the petitioner. If you are facing a similar patent dispute before Milan (IT) Central Division- Section, this precedent supports interim or final relief where the facts are comparable. The ratio regarding the applied tests is particularly relevant for strategy.
Related Cases
Heraeus Electronics GmbH & Co. KGvsVibrantz GmbH
In this procedural ruling, the UPC addressed a request by Heraeus Electronics to amend its infringement claims following changes in national patent litigation. The court permitted the amendment of direct infringement claims that reflected legal finality achieved elsewhere. However, the court rejected the late addition of an indirect infringement claim, citing lack of due diligence and arguing it should have been raised at the initial filing.
NanoString Technologies Inc.vs10x Genomics, Inc.
This UPC appellate decision addresses the critical interplay between preliminary injunctions, their subsequent revocation, and the enforceability of associated penalty orders (Zwangsgelder). The court established that because initial injunctions are generally retroactive, overturning them eliminates the legal foundation for any coercive fine order. This ruling provides significant clarity on risk management for patentees relying on provisional measures in UPC proceedings.
Oerlikon Textile GmbH & CO KGvsBhagat Textile Engineers
Oerlikon Textile successfully sued Bhagat Textile Engineers for infringing its patent covering a false twist texturing machine. The Milan Local Division found infringement and issued an injunction prohibiting the sale and promotion of the infringing machine in Italy and Germany. Furthermore, the court imposed a penalty of 12,000 Euro per violation episode and awarded Oerlikon interim damages of 15,000 Euro.
Cardo Systems, Ltd.vsShenzhen Asmax Infinite Technology Co., Ltd. And Hong Kong Yiheng International Technology Co. Limited
Cardo Systems successfully obtained a provisional injunction against Shenzhen Asmax and Hong Kong Yiheng International Technology Co. Limited regarding the patented fastening device EP 4 240 194. The Court granted the preliminary measure without hearing the defendants, immediately halting their ability to market or use the infringing product across UPC member states. This decision highlights the speed and effectiveness of provisional measures within the Unified Patent Court system for protecting IP rights.
Headwater Research LLCvsSamsung Electronics GmbH, Samsung Electronics France S.A.S, Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd.
This procedural order in the UPC Local Division Munich addressed requests for extensions and case management adjustments in a patent infringement action involving Headwater Research LLC and Samsung Electronics. The court granted the requested extension, allowing Samsung more time to respond to key applications concerning claim amendments and case review. This decision highlights the Court's role in managing complex litigation timelines while also issuing guidance on efficient procedural practice.
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.