Short Summary
Insulet Corporation applied to the Central Division Milan for the determination of penalty payments against EOFLOW Co., Ltd. for alleged non-compliance with a Court of Appeal Preliminary Injunction (30 April 2025) and a Decision on the Merits (22 July 2025) concerning patent EP4201327 relating to fluid delivery devices such as insulin pumps. EOFLOW argued that the infringing products were supplied by Menarini Diagnostics under a settlement agreement with Insulet, and that the shipments occurred before the Decision on the Merits. The Court ordered EOFLOW to pay EUR 150,000 as a penalty payment and EUR 10,000 in costs.
Detailed Summary
This case concerns an application by Insulet Corporation for the determination of penalty payments against EOFLOW Co., Ltd. for non-compliance with injunctive relief related to European Patent EP4201327, which covers a fluid delivery device (such as an insulin pump) comprising a fluid reservoir, a transcutaneous access tool, a drive mechanism with a drive wheel, plunger, leadscrew, nut, and clutch mechanism. The products at issue were offered under the tradenames 'EOPatch' and 'GlucoMen Day Pump'.
On 30 April 2025, the Court of Appeal issued a Preliminary Injunction (ORD_69078/2024, UPC_CoA_768/2024, APL_64374/2024) ordering EOFLOW to refrain from making, offering, placing on the market, using, importing, or storing the infringing products in various UPC Member States including Italy and Sweden, with periodic penalty payments of up to EUR 250,000 for each violation and up to EUR 100,000 for each day of continued violation. On 22 July 2025, the Central Division Milan issued its Decision on the Merits (ORD_22491/2025, ACT_56003/2024) ordering EOFLOW to refrain from the same acts, with a penalty of EUR 30,000 per day for non-compliance.
Insulet alleged that EOFLOW breached these obligations by unlawfully supplying infringing products to Italy and Sweden despite having full knowledge of the injunctions. EOFLOW countered that the importation was carried out exclusively by the Italian company Menarini Diagnostics s.r.l., which was bound to Insulet by a settlement agreement providing for continued supply to patients still undergoing treatment. EOFLOW argued that the purchases occurred at Menarini's warehouses in Korea, before the Central Division Milan's final injunction in July 2025, and that the intermediate recipient was the Italian company Florence Shipping s.r.l. EOFLOW further argued that the Court of Appeal's April 2025 order did not predetermine a specific penalty per violation, only a maximum ceiling, which did not satisfy the requirements of Rule 354.3 RoP as interpreted in the Fujifilm/Kodak Order (UPC_CoA_699/2025). EOFLOW also denied any shipment to the Swedish market, claiming the 'Sweden' reference in account details related only to pricing differences.
Insulet responded that the Kodak v. Fujifilm order was inapplicable because both the Court of Appeal's Order and the Central Division Milan's Decision contained express and enforceable penalty provisions issued in compliance with Rule 354.3 RoP, and that the latter should be applied retrospectively.
The Court found that EOFLOW had breached the Court of Appeal's Preliminary Injunction of 30 April 2025. The Court rejected EOFLOW's argument that the Fujifilm/Kodak precedent prevented penalty assessment, noting that the Court of Appeal's order did contain a penalty clause. The Court also rejected EOFLOW's argument that the shipments were outside UPC jurisdiction, finding that the goods were ultimately destined for UPC territory (Italy). The Court further found that EOFLOW's reliance on the Menarini settlement did not absolve it of responsibility, as EOFLOW itself supplied the infringing products knowing they would reach UPC territory. The Court also dismissed EOFLOW's argument regarding the Swedish market, finding that the evidence showed shipments were indeed directed to Sweden.
Regarding confidentiality, the Court found that neither the shipment details nor the legal arguments warranted confidential treatment, as the information was either already public or lacked the necessary safeguards for secrecy.
The Court ordered EOFLOW to pay EUR 150,000 as a penalty payment for non-compliance with the Court of Appeal's Preliminary Injunction, to be paid immediately to the Court. The applications under Rules 262.2 and 262A RoP were dismissed. EOFLOW was also ordered to bear the costs of the proceedings in the amount of EUR 10,000, payable to Insulet. The imposition of the penalty is subject to appeal under Rule 354.4 RoP.
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
Insulet CorporationvsEOFLOW Co., Ltd.
This case before the Milan Central Division of the Unified Patent Court concerned European patent EP4201327 (relating to fluid delivery devices for insulin pumps). EOFLOW sought revocation of the patent, while Insulet filed a counterclaim for infringement based on EOFLOW's EOPatch insulin pump. The Court issued a decision by default against EOFLOW on the revocation action, upheld the patent, found infringement by EOFLOW, and ordered injunctive relief, information disclosure, product recall, and damages with penalty payments for non-compliance.
Abbott Diabetes Care Inc.vsSibio Technology Limited, Umedwings Netherlands B.V.
Abbott Diabetes Care Inc., proprietor of European patent EP 3 831 283 relating to an on-body glucose sensor device, sought provisional measures against Sibio Technology Limited and Umedwings Netherlands B.V. The Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court (Local Division The Hague) denied the application, finding that on the balance of probabilities the patent would more likely than not be held invalid for added matter (Article 123(2) EPC). Abbott was ordered to bear the costs of the proceedings, and the value of the dispute was set at EUR 4,000,000.
TEXPORT Handelsgesellschaft mbHvsSioen NV
This case concerns a preliminary objection filed by Sioen NV (SIOEN) in infringement proceedings brought by TEXPORT Handelsgesellschaft mbH (TEXPORT) before the Nordic-Baltic Regional Division of the Unified Patent Court regarding EP2186428, relating to tissue construction for protective clothing. SIOEN sought dismissal or stay of the UPC proceedings on the basis of parallel proceedings it had initiated before a Belgian national court, arguing that the Belgian court was first seised. The Court dismissed SIOEN's requests, finding that the parties in the parallel proceedings were not the same and that the conditions for staying or declining jurisdiction under Articles 29, 30, and 31 of the Brussels I recast Regulation were not met.
Magna PT B.V. & Co. KG, Magna PT s.r.o., and Magna International France, SARLvsValeo Electrification (Procedural Application concerning Allocation of Technically Qualified Judge)
This procedural order concerns an application by the Magna entities (defendants in the main proceedings) for a review of the allocation of a technically qualified judge (TQJ) in proceedings where Valeo Electrification had sought provisional measures based on EP 3 320 604 B1. The President of the Court of First Instance dismissed the application, holding that parties cannot suggest the technical background of an allocated judge, and the only permissible ground for objecting to a judge is partiality under Article 7.4 UPCA.
Progress Maschinen & Automation AGvsAWM Srl, SCHNELL S.p.A
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court set aside an order of the Court of First Instance (Local Division Milan) that had revoked measures to preserve evidence and inspect premises granted in favor of Progress Maschinen & Automation AG against AWM Srl and SCHNELL S.p.A. The Court of Appeal held that applications for preservation of evidence under Article 60 UPCA imply disclosure of the evidence to the applicant, but that the other party must be heard on confidentiality before disclosure. The case was referred back to the Court of First Instance to properly consider Progress's requests for disclosure and to address confidentiality issues.
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.