MILAN CENTRAL DIVISION Law and Practice Contributed by: Luca Pellicciari, Lorenzo Battarino and Daniel Borgogni, Trevisan & Cuonzo
• 12 September 2025 in bioMérieux UK Ltd v Labrador Diagnostics LLC; • 7 October 2025 in Pari Pharma GmbH v Koninklijke Philips NV; and • 27 January 2026 in Amgen Switzerland AG v Alexion Pharmaceuticals, Inc. Interim Conferences One interim conference was also held: • on 13 May 2025, in the context of the revoca - tion action brought by EOFlow against Insulet Corporation. 2.3 Case Classification As said, actions filed before the central divi - sion concern patents falling under IPC class A (human necessities), excluding those with sup - plementary protection certificates (SPCs). The patents involved in the cases handled so far are therefore all listed under that IPC class, with some of the patents involved in such actions also being listed in other IPC classes including classes B (performing operations, transporting), C (chemistry, metallurgy), F (mechanical engi - neering, lighting, heating, weapons, blasting) Despite being still too early to judge – the Milan CD started operating only around one year ago – the court seems to be on track with the gen - eral target set by the UPC of proceedings last - ing 12–14 months from filing to issuing a first instance decision on the merits. 2.5 Interaction Between Central and Local/Regional Divisions A significant interaction between the Milan CD and the Milan Local Division took place in the Insulet v EOFlow case, where Insulet applied for provisional measures against EOFlow (the and G (physics). 2.4 Time Lines
manufacturer of the allegedly infringing prod - uct). Insulet had also commenced parallel pre - liminary proceedings before the Milan Local Divi - sion versus EOFlow’s local distributor, Menarini. The latter filed an application to intervene in the preliminary proceedings before the Milan CD in support of EOFlow, but the Milan CD dismissed such application (ORD_52068/2024). Although an application to intervene is in principle com - patible with urgent proceedings, the Milan CD noted that the intervention cannot be allowed when it would result in proceedings being exces - sively slowed down, as would have happened under the specific circumstances. Adopting a similar position, in the parallel preliminary pro - ceedings pending before the Milan Local Divi - sion, the latter also dismissed EOFlow’s appli - cation to intervene in support of the position of Menarini, citing the risk that urgent proceedings would be excessively slowed down under the circumstances (ORD_51903/2024). Interestingly, in the two parallel cases for pro - visional measures before the Milan LD and the Milan CD, one of the legally qualified judges and the technically qualified judge were the same (respectively Ms Anna-Lena Klein and Uwe Schwengelbeck).
3. Substantive Law 3.1 Topics Covered
The most comprehensive decision issued by the Milan CD to date that addresses points of sub - stantive law is an order in which the court dis - missed the application for preliminary measures filed by Insulet against EOFlow. Delivered on 22 November 2024, the order (ORD_56716/2024) dismissed the application based on a finding that the patent enforced was more likely than not invalid, in light of one prior art document (a
72
CHAMBERS.COM
Powered by FlippingBook