MILAN CENTRAL DIVISION Law and Practice Contributed by: Luca Pellicciari, Lorenzo Battarino and Daniel Borgogni, Trevisan & Cuonzo
Maschio Gaspardo v Spiridonakis Bros Infringement action, filed 30 August 2024 The case, which involves a counterclaim for revocation, concerns a patent by Maschio Gas - pardo covering a reversible tool for agricultural subsoilers and the like. Notably, in the context of this case, in order to best understand the func - tioning of the tool covered by the patent (which could be best evaluated when mounted on an agricultural soiler), the Milan CD decided – with order of 15 May 2025 and in accordance with Article 53 UPCA and Rule 170 RoP – to carry out an inspection of the patented machine and of the challenged embodiment at the applicant’s premises, since it would have been not feasi - ble or very difficult to transport to the court the complete machine (weighing around 2 tons) or even just the anchor member subject of the patent (approximately 200kg). The inspection – scheduled for 10.30am on 4 June 2025 – was then followed by the continuation of the public hearing at the premises of the Milan CD, starting at 3.30pm. No information is currently available to the public on the patent law issues involved in the case, as no final judgment has yet been issued. Biomerieux UK v Labrador Diagnostics Revocation action, filed 5 September 2024 The case concerns the validity of Labrador Diag - nostics’ patent covering a modular point-of-care device and uses thereof. No information is cur - rently available to the public on the patent law issues involved in the case. EOFlow v Insulet Revocation action, filed 14 October 2024 This case, which follows a request for preliminary measures filed earlier by Insulet against EOFlow (rejected, but later granted on appeal, see 3.6 Court of Appeal Substantive Jurisprudence ), concerns the alleged invalidity of one of Insu -
US patent) which was analysed in the decision. Consequently, the court deemed it unnecessary to address all other invalidity arguments raised by the defendant, nor the other requirements for issuing preliminary measures. Interestingly, this decision also addresses the issue of admissibility of auxiliary requests to amend the patent pursuant to Rule 30.2 of the Rules of Procedure (RoP) in the framework of urgent proceedings. The court concluded that such requests are not admissible in proceedings for provisional measures, in accordance with the necessary expediency of the procedure, which requires urgency/imminent prejudice, and, at the same time, the necessity to respect the adver - sarial principle and the right of defence of the other party. To date, the Milan CD has dealt with a number of case management and procedural issues, but has yet to issue a decision on the merits of a revocation action, having been active for less than one year. As indicated above, the cases running in the Milan Central Division appear to be on target to meet the time lines stipulated in the UPC Rules and so the first substantive deci - sions will emerge in the summer of 2025. 3.2 Leading Cases Considering that – as mentioned above – the Milan CD is still in its early stages, no lead - ing cases in terms of substantive law issues addressed can yet be identified. 3.3 Pending Cases The following cases are pending before the CD Milan at the time of publication of the guide (30 June 2025).
73
CHAMBERS.COM
Powered by FlippingBook