ITALY Trends and Developments Contributed by: Giovanni F Casucci, GA-Alliance
Italy: One of the Most Involved Countries in Litigation According to the report issued by the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) in June 2023 about “Trade Secrets Litigation Trends in the EU”, Italy is one of the most involved jurisdictions in litigation. The report includes Italy among the member states with “disproportionately high trade secrets litigation levels”. Interestingly, according to the report – in particular at Table 1, aiming to compare actual and expected litigation volumes, and at the last column related to patent litigation – Germany should manage 278 cases per year, and France 116, the Netherlands 77 and Italy only 47. In contrast, a 2021 Juve Patent study report - ed that Germany was handling 714 cases per year, the Netherlands 131, Milan (alone) 108 and France 84, even without the case volume of all the IP courts in Ita - ly (which should bring the number to more than 250). Recently, in February 2026, Juve Patent reported that “[w]ith a total of 627 new cases, the number of newly filed actions for technical property rights at the seven courts focusing on patent disputes was almost 14% higher in 2025 than in the previous year. In 2024, com - panies had only filed 551 new lawsuits. This means that the figures in Germany rose again for the first time since 2021 after years of decline”. According to the 2024 UPC annual report (page 77), the Italian Local Division (Milan) is the second most involved after those in Germany (Munich, Dusseldorf, Mannheim, Hamburg), followed by the Netherlands (the Hague) and France (Paris). The data for 2025, not yet published by Juve Patent, reported an increase of 50% in infringement cases. It is evident that Italy is one of the most involved juris - dictions in IP litigation and trade secrets litigation; the reasons for this are evidently not based on the “expected” volumes connected to GDP. Finally, it is worth noting that trade secrets cases may frequently involve economic values (several millions or even bil - lions of euros), greatly surpassing the average values involved in patent litigation or other IP cases. The author would like to propose a different perspec - tive: Germany is involved in so many patent cases due
to the acquired reputation of its courts and judges, while Italy is necessarily involved in so many cases due to effective market interest and reactivity, regard - less of any specific reputation attributed to the Italian courts and judges. A Unique System With 11 Specialised Courts Ever since the 2003 reform, in which specialised sec - tions of industrial property (including IP rights and trade secrets) were established for the first time, the approach of the Italian judiciary has been to give maximum attention to this issue, which is strongly influenced by EU legislation and the case law of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU). This attention has manifested itself first and foremost in the management of timeframes, allowing for preferential treatment compared to normal civil litigation. Following the various reforms, a specific selection of 11 courts (half of the 22 competent for IP civil litiga - tion) was created in 2014 to give priority treatment to IP litigation involving foreigners (as claimants or defendants). This selection is intended to respond to the specific recommendation contained in the European Trademark and Design Regulations inviting member states to appoint a reduced number of courts with the power to handle counterclaims for nullity and injunctions within EU territory. The Real Timing of Industrial Litigation in Italy The “time” factor is absolutely considered a priority in Italian litigation, and the entire substantive and proce - dural regulatory system is designed to allow for effi - cient management. Of course, like any “tool”, it must be well understood and properly used. The reliability of statistics, which places Italy as the slowest country in terms of handling IP and trade secrets litigation, should also be challenged. Any sta - tistic must be based on homogeneous and compara - ble data in order to be credible. Therefore, IP and trade secrets litigation statistics should first be divided between interlocutory and ordi - nary proceedings. Appropriately proportioned speed ratings reveal the following:
104 CHAMBERS.COM
Powered by FlippingBook