Insulet v EOFlow (UPC_CFI_380/2024)
Decision date:
22 November 2024
Osborne Clarke summary
- This decision is related to Insulet v Menarini in the Milan LD. Insulet applied ex parte for provisional measures against EOFlow (the producer of the allegedly infringing device for which Menarini is the exclusive distributor in Europe). Again, the ex parte action was rejected. EOFlow lodged a defence, asserting that Insulet's patent was invalid. Menarini filed an application to intervene in these proceedings, which was supported by EOFlow. This was rejected by the Milan CD, which held that Menarini could achieve its objectives in the parallel proceedings and should not be given the opportunity to represent its case in front of two different courts.
- Nevertheless, the Milan CD rejected Insulet's application for a preliminary injunction. The Milan CD confirmed the need for the applicant to prove with a sufficient degree of certainty that: (i) it is entitled to initiate proceedings under Article 47 UPCA; (ii) the patent is valid; and (iii) its rights are being infringed or such infringement is imminent. Much like the Milan LD in the parallel proceedings, the Milan CD here found that it was more likely than not that the patent would be held invalid.
- Again, Insulet made an auxiliary request to amend the patent, which was deemed inadmissible in proceedings for provisional measures.
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.