Insulet Corporation v EOFlow (UPC_CoA_768/2024)
Decision date:
30 April 2025
Osborne Clarke summary
- Insulet filed an application for an ex parte preliminary injunction against EOFlow relating to its patent concerning a fluid delivery device for delivering therapeutic liquids to patients in the Milan CD. The Milan CD held that the patent appeared to lack novelty over a US patent application and therefore it appeared more likely than not that the patent was invalid.
- Insulet also submitted a simultaneous application for a preliminary injunction against Menarini, the exclusive European distributor of EOFlow's attacked embodiment, in the Milan LD. This application was also rejected. Insulet appealed both decisions and the Court of Appeal heard the two cases together. During the hearing, a settlement was reached between Insulet and Menarini but not with EOFlow.
- In the appeal against the Milan CD's decision between Insulet and EOFlow, the Court of Appeal held that Insulet's appeal was successful and the preliminary injunction should be granted.
- In the context of claim construction, EOFlow argued that its expert's opinion should be followed because Insulet did not provide an expert opinion of its own. The Court of Appeal disagreed, holding that interpretation of a patent claim is a matter of law and therefore the court cannot leave the task to an expert. It must construe the claim independently. Just because one party does not submit an expert opinion does not mean the court has to follow the submitted expert opinion. The Court of Appeal reminded the parties that the skilled person is a notional entity that cannot be equated with a real person in the technical field. When considering the definition of the skilled person, the decisive factor is not the individual knowledge and ability of a person, but the specialist knowledge that is normal to the relevant field of technology.
- Based on the Court of Appeal's own interpretation, it held that it was more likely than not that the patent is valid as the US patent application did not disclose all of the features of the relevant claim. The court also held that is was more likely than not that the attacked embodiments infringed the patent. After the weighing of interests, the Court of Appeal held that the requested preliminary injunction should be issued.
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.