Short Summary
1 Milan - Central Division – Court of First Instance - UPC_CFI_1167/2025 Final Order pursuant to Rules 354.3, 262. 2 and 262A RoP of the Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court issued on 4 December 2025 Applicant INSULET Co 100 Nagog Park - MA 01720 - Acton – US Massachuset
Detailed Summary
1
Milan - Central Division – Court of First
Instance -
UPC_CFI_1167/2025
Final Order pursuant to Rules 354.3, 262. 2 and 262A RoP
of the Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court
issued on 4 December 2025
Applicant
INSULET Co 100 Nagog Park - MA 01720 - Acton – US Massachusetts
Represented by Marc Grunwald and Frank Peterreins
Defendant
EOFLOW Co. Ltd 302Ho, HUMAX VILLAGE, 216 - 13595 - Hwangsaeul-ro, Bundang-gu, Seongnam-
si, Gyeonggi-do - KR
Represented by Mirko Weinert and Christopher Pierce
Patent number EP4201327
The decision is issued by the first instance panel (Rule 354.4) composed of:
Andrea Postiglione
Presiding judge and judge-rapporteur
Anna-Lena Klein
Legally qualified judge
Uwe Schwengelbeck
Technically qualified judge
The language of the proceedings is English.
On 14 October 2025, INSULET filed an application with this Court for the determination of a penalty
payment with regard to the following proceedings: UPC_CFI_597/2024 (Revocation Action);
UPC_CFI_787/2024
(Counterclaim
for
infringement);
ORD_22491/2025
ACT_56003/2024
2
Proceedings
for
Interim
Relief
(Court
of
Appeal,
Luxembourg);
UPC_CoA_768/2024
APL_64374/2024 ORD_69078/2024.
INSULET requested that:
I. The Respondent be ordered to pay penalty payments for non-compliance with the obligations
contained in Section II.I. of the ruling of the Court of Appeal’s Order in the preliminary injunction
proceedings dated 30 April 2025 (ORD_69078/2024, UPC_CoA_768/2024, APL_64374/2024) and in
item a) of the ruling of the Decision on the Merits of the Central Division Milan dated 22 July 2025
(ORD_22491/2025, ACT_56003/2024) . As expressly stated in the respective rulings, penalty
payments are requested for each violation and for each day on which the infringement continues,
with the exact amount of the penalty left to the discretion of the Court;
II. the Respondent bear the costs of the proceedings.
The Applicant maintained that EOFLOW had breached its obligations arising from the injunctive relief
issued by the Court of Appeal’s Order dated 30 April 20251 (the “Preliminary Injunction”) and the
on the Merits of the Central Division Milan dated 22 July 20252 (the “Decision on the
Merits”) by unlawfully supplying infringing products to Italy and Sweden despite having full
knowledge of the content of the injunction. Both decisions expressly stated that the import, export
and supply of infringing embodiments into UPC territory were subject to penalty payments.
1 The CoA ordered EOFlow to refrain from making, offering, placing on the market, using or possessing for the purposes
mentioned, or importing or storing the product for those purposes in the territories of the Republic of Austria, the
Kingdom of Belgium, the Republic of Bulgaria, the Kingdom of Denmark, the Republic of Estonia, the Republic of Finland,
the French Republic, the Federal Republic of Germany, the Italian Republic, the Republic of Latvia, the Republic of
Lithuania, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg, the Republic of Malta, the Kingdom of the Netherlands, the Portuguese
Republic, the Republic of Slovenia and/or the Kingdom of Sweden a fluid delivery device comprising: a fluid reservoir; a
transcutaneous access tool fluidly coupled to the fluid reservoir; and a drive mechanism for driving fluid from the
reservoir, the drive mechanism comprising: a drive wheel; a plunger received in the reservoir; and a leadscrew extending
from the plunger; characterized in that the drive mechanism further comprises: a nut threadably engaged with the
leadscrew; and a clutch mechanism coupled to the drive wheel, wherein the clutch mechanism is configured to allow
the nut to pass through the clutch mechanism when disengaged and is configured to grip the nut when engaged such
that the drive wheel rotates the nut to advance the leadscrew and the plunger into the reservoir, such as the insulin
pumps shown in the pi
Practitioner Note
This case demonstrates the evidentiary and procedural standards applied in patent matters before Milan (IT) Central Division- Section. Understanding the court's reasoning in Insulet Corporation vs EOFLOW Co., Ltd. is valuable context for structuring arguments or assessing risk in similar proceedings.
Related Cases
Solarlab Aiko Europe GmbH, Aiko Energy Netherlands B.V., Aiko Energy Germany GmbHvsVDH Solar Groothandel B.V., Libra Energy B.V., Memodo GmbH, Maxeon Solar Pte. Ltd., PowerDeal SRL, Coenergia Srl a Socio Unico
This is a procedural order from the Düsseldorf Local Division concerning EP 3 065 184 B1, dealing with the protection of confidential information under R. 262A RoP. Defendants 1, 2, and 4 (Aiko Energy Germany GmbH, Solarlab Aiko Europe GmbH, and Aiko Energy Netherlands B.V.) sought to extend a prior confidentiality order to cover additional green-shaded financial information in their Rejoinder and Exhibit HL 41. The court granted the extension for the specific identified information but rejected the broader request to extend confidentiality to all future submissions as too vague and indeterminate.
Microsoft CorporationvsSuinno Mobile & AI Technologies Licensing Oy
Microsoft sought discretionary review of an order by the Paris Central Division that refused to declare Suinno's patent infringement action manifestly inadmissible under Rule 361 RoP, based on an alleged lack of independence of Suinno's representative. The Court of Appeal dismissed Microsoft's request, holding that the manifest inadmissibility standard under R. 361 RoP must be reserved for clear-cut cases and that Microsoft failed to demonstrate that discretionary review was necessary, particularly since the independence issue was already the subject of a pending appeal.
Telefonaktiebolaget LM EricssonvsRespondent
This case before the Milan Local Division concerned the withdrawal of infringement and revocation proceedings involving patent EP3076673 against Digital River Ireland Ltd. following Digital River's insolvency and winding-up order by the High Court of Ireland. Both Ericsson and Digital River agreed to mutual withdrawal of the infringement action and counterclaim for revocation, but disagreed on costs. The Court allowed the withdrawals, ordered the main proceedings to continue against the remaining defendants (Asustek and Arvato), and held that both Ericsson and Digital River should bear their own costs.
EOFLOW Co., Ltd.vsRespondent
The costs of a preliminary injunction must be settled at the same time as the decision on the merits, since the outcome of the preliminary phase must be considered in the framework of the overall settlement of litigation costs; cost compensation cannot be parcelled out according to the outcome of the various stages of the case but must relate to the final decision on the case as a whole. The outcome of the preliminary phase concerning the application for a preliminary injunction, therefore,
Sanofi - Produtos Farmaceuticos Lda, Sanofi B.V., Sanofi Mature IP, Sanofi Winthrop Industrie, Sanofi A/S, Sanofi Belgium, Sanofi-Aventis Deutschland GmbH, Sanofi S.r.l., Sanofi-Aventis France, Sanofi AB, Sanofi-Aventis GmbHvsRespondent
This procedural order concerns four related patent infringement actions brought by multiple Sanofi entities against Accord Healthcare, STADA, Reddy Pharma, and Zentiva regarding European Patent No. 2 493 466. The core issue was Sanofi's application under Rule 305 RoP to substitute Sanofi-Aventis France with Sanofi Winthrop Industrie following a corporate merger. The court granted the substitution, ruling that the retroactive effect of the merger was not relevant and that no formal stay of proceedings was necessary.
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.