EOFlow v Insulet (UPC_CoA_194/2025)
Decision date:
03 April 2025
Osborne Clarke summary
- The Milan CD had earlier rejected Insulet's request for provisional measures against EOFlow, with Insulet to bear the costs of the proceedings. The Milan CD dismissed EOFlow's application for a cost decision without examination of the substance. EOFlow filed for leave to appeal under Rule 221 RoP. EOFlow then requested withdrawal of its appeal application and did not seek a decision on costs of its appeal application. Insulet agreed to the withdrawal of the application and also did not seek a decision on costs of the appeal application.
- The Court of Appeal held that under Rule 265 RoP, as long as there is no final decision in an action, the claimant may apply to withdraw their action. This applies mutatis mutandis to a party seeking leave to appeal a costs decision. As such, the Court of Appeal permitted EOFlow's withdrawal of its appeal application with the agreement of the parties.
Issue
Curious about how UPC decisions might impact your business? Have questions about the UPC?
Reach out to our patents team for expert guidance and support.