Executive Summary
In a critical case concerning motorcycle tires, Pirelli Tyre successfully obtained provisional measures from the UPC Local Division in Milan against Tianjin Kingtyre and Kingtyre Deutschland. Facing an imminent trade fair where infringing products were set to be displayed, Pirelli secured an order for the seizure and delivery of contested goods. This ruling underscores the UPC's ability to provide rapid interim relief in complex infringement cases while maintaining procedural safeguards.
What the Court Held — Ratio Decidendi
Given the extreme urgency related to the upcoming trade fair (EICMA), the Court granted provisional measures focused on securing evidence and preventing further commercialization. The ruling established jurisdiction and competence for the Local Division of Milan regarding these urgent interim relief requests under the UPC Agreement.
Practitioner Note
This decision partially_granted relief to the petitioner. If you are facing a similar patent dispute before Milan (IT) Local Division, 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
Edwards Lifesciences CorporationvsMeril Gmbh
This UPC order addresses procedural rectifications requested by Meril GmbH in the infringement case concerning Edwards Lifesciences' heart valve patent (EP 3 646 825). The defendants sought corrections to technical descriptions, jurisdictional statements, and references to prior art/expert opinions within the original decision. The court accepted several of these amendments, ensuring accuracy in the record while maintaining the ongoing nature of the dispute.
Shangrao Xinyuan Yuedong Technology Development Co., LtdvsLONGi Solar Technologie GmbH, LONGi Green Energy Technology Co. Ltd, Longi (Netherlands) Trading B. V., Energy3000 solar GmbH, Thomas Seifert
In a procedural order issued on August 26, 2025, the UPC stayed an infringement action concerning EP 3 297 043 B1. The stay was granted because both the Claimant and several Defendants were engaged in settlement negotiations. Additionally, the Court extended the deadline for filing the Statement of Defence to five months to accommodate the procedural pause. This decision highlights the UPC's flexibility in managing complex litigation where out-of-court settlements are actively being pursued.
Bobst Manchester LimitedvsNordmeccanica S.p.A.
This UPC CFI decision addressed a procedural application concerning the language of proceedings in an infringement case involving Nordmeccanica S.p.A. and Bobst Manchester Limited regarding EP3067437. The court ruled in favor of the defendant, granting the request to change the language from German to English. The ruling emphasized that when assessing fairness for a language change, the position of the defendant—who faces strict deadlines and must prepare its defense—is given decisive weight if interests are balanced.
American Wave Machines, Inc.vsSurftown GmbH
This procedural order from the Düsseldorf Local Division addresses the protection of confidential information in a complex infringement and revocation action concerning surfing technology (EP 2 728 089 B1). The Court meticulously defined which technical details within the defense statements and briefs must be classified as confidential. This ruling reinforces the strict confidentiality protocols available under the UPC framework, ensuring that sensitive commercial information remains protected during litigation.
Canon Kabushiki KaishavsKatun Germany GmbH a.o., Katun (E.D.C.) B.V., Katun Corporation, General Plastic Industrial Co., Ltd.
In this procedural order, the UPC Local Division in Düsseldorf addressed a request by Canon Kabushiki Kaisha to submit further evidence regarding additional infringing products found during a late test purchase. The Court rejected the Claimant's attempt to introduce new arguments concerning these additional model numbers, citing principles of due process and procedural economy. The ruling stressed that evidence should be presented without delay when relevant deadlines are approaching, especially if the subject matter is materially identical to what has already been pleaded.
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.