Maschio Gaspardo S.p.A. v. Spiridonakis Bros GP

On 5 September 2024, Maschio Gaspardo S.p.A. (MG), an Italian multinational active in agricultural equipment, filed an action for patent infringement before the Central Division Milan of the Unified Patent Court against the Greek company Spiridonakis Brothers. The claimant alleged that the defendant offered for sale, distributed, and advertised a product under the name 'Bellota tool,' which was a mere counterfeit of MG's patented product.

The patent at issue is EP 1 998 604, titled 'Reversible tool for agricultural subsoilers and the like,' filed on 29 March 2007 and granted on 2 May 2012. The patent is validated in France, Turkey, Italy, Germany, Romania, the Czech Republic, and for the purposes of these proceedings, also in Bulgaria. Claim 1, the only independent claim, describes a reversible tool with an elongate plate-like body having chisels at opposite ends, with fixing means comprising a pair of parallel and spaced plates with coaxial apertures for quick-release connectors. The technical problem solved by the patent is providing a reversible tool compatible with standard quick-release fasteners that are protected from wear.

The claimant requested a permanent injunction under Article 63(1) UPCA, a recurring penalty under Article 63(2) UPCA, a declaration of infringement under Article 64(2)(a), an information order under Article 67(1) UPCA, and an order for legal costs. During the oral hearing, the claimant clarified that the injunction was sought only for contracting member states where the EP is valid, and withdrew additional requests.

The statement of claim was served on the defendant on 2 January 2025 in absentia. The defendant did not file written submissions or appear at the oral hearing. The Court addressed two key legal issues: (1) the scope of Rule 355.2 RoP in default decisions, holding that it has a broader scope than Rule 171.2 RoP and requires the claimant to provide sufficient evidence demonstrating entitlement to the relief sought, consistent with the front-loaded nature of UPC proceedings; and (2) the 'double territoriality' requirement of Article 26 UPCA, holding that the offer and the act of putting into effect need not refer to the same contracting member state, even for bundle patents, as the wording 'therein'/'auf diesem Gebiet'/'sur cette territoire' makes clear.

The Court found that the claimant had established infringement through evidence including screenshots of the defendant's website, social media, and online marketplace listings showing offers of the Bellota tool in Italy, Germany, France, Romania, and Bulgaria. The Court held that the requirements of Article 26 UPCA were satisfied because the offer was established with respect to the territories of the contracting member states where the EP is valid.

The operative part of the decision: (1) declared that the contested Bellota tool products infringe EP '604; (2) granted a permanent injunction prohibiting the defendant from offering, marketing, advertising, distributing, or selling infringing products in Italy, Germany, France, Romania, and Bulgaria from the date of service, with a penalty of €500 for each set of tools sold in violation; (3) ordered the defendant to communicate information concerning the origin and distribution channels of infringing products, quantities, prices, and identities of third parties involved, with a penalty of €100 per day of delay after the 15th day following service; and (4) ordered the defendant to pay €25,000 plus VAT for legal costs and to reimburse the court fees paid by the claimant. The decision was delivered on 8 July 2025 by a full panel consisting of Presiding Judge Andrea Postiglione, Legally Qualified Judge Anna-Lena Klein, and Technically Qualified Judge Bernard Ledeboer.