MILAN CENTRAL DIVISION Law and Practice Contributed by: Luca Pellicciari, Lorenzo Battarino and Daniel Borgogni, Trevisan & Cuonzo
3.4 Technically Qualified Judges The Presiding Judge and legally qualified judge (LQJ) of the Milan CD, Mr Postiglione, is at ease in interacting with the technically qualified judges (TQJs), due to the established practice in Italian national proceedings of involving court-appoint - ed technical advisers in the case to obtain tech - nical inputs on the validity and infringement of the patent in suit. Such practice will likely be reflecting how the Milan CD handles its cases, resulting in a significant involvement of the TQJs appointed as part of the panel when deciding on technical issues. Additionally, even if no decision issued to date has addressed inventive step, the role that TQJs are likely to play in the decision-making process of the Milan CD would imply a strong reliance on the problem-solution approach (PSA). The Milan CD is hence expected to lean towards a more consistent EPO-style application of the PSA, influenced by the typical practice of Ital - ian national courts, which consistently adopt the test in assessing inventive step. 3.5 Influence of Prior Local Practice on Substantive Legal Decisions As mentioned above, the traditional approach by Italian judges of interacting with an independent technical adviser is likely to influence their inter - action with technically qualified judges and their involvement/role in the decision-making process of the Milan CD. As more and more substantive decisions are issued by the Milan CD in the coming months, substantive law issues such as the approach to claim construction, the relevance of the file wrapper history, equivalence and the assess - ment of the requirements to grant preliminary injunctions will be addressed by the court.
let’s patents covering a fluid delivery device with transcutaneous access, an insertion mechanism and blood monitoring capabilities. No informa - tion is currently available to the public on the patent law issues involved in the case. Pari Pharma v Philips Revocation action, filed 23 October 2024 The case concerns the alleged invalidity of a Philips patent covering a nebuliser head with an improved air-flow. Following filing of the case, Philips has filed an application to amend the pat - ent together with its statement of defence. The case is scheduled to be heard at a public oral hearing on 7 October 2025. No other information on the case is yet publicly available. Amgen v Alexion Revocation action, filed 31 October 2024 The case concerns the alleged invalidity of an Alexion patent covering treatment of paroxys - mal nocturnal haemoglobinuria patients and was filed in the context of ongoing litigation between Amgen and Alexion based on the same patent in Germany and the UPC: in Germany, Alexion had indeed obtained a PI by the Munich Regional Court, which was then overturned by the Munich Higher Regional Court; at the UPC, Alexion was denied a PI by the Hamburg LD, with a decision later upheld by the Court of Appeal in Luxem - bourg. At the date of publication of this guide, no public information is available regarding the case filed before the Milan CD. Fisher & Paykel v Flexicare Revocation action, filed 2 November 2024 This case concerns the validity of a Flexicare patent covering a nasal cannula. The case is still in its very early stages – service of the initial statement of claim only took place on 3 June 2025 – and no public information has yet been made available.
74
CHAMBERS.COM
Powered by FlippingBook