MILAN LOCAL DIVISION Law and Practice Contributed by: Vittorio Cerulli Irelli, Lorenzo Battarino and Daniel Borgogni, Trevisan & Cuonzo
tial information in court proceedings concerning the private enforcement of EU Competition Law (2020/C 242/01) – at least one in-house repre - sentative of the party should be provided access to the confidential information, in addition to all parties’ UPC representatives. In setting out the exact boundaries of the confidentiality club, the court has clarified that a balance shall be found between the legitimate interest of confi - dentiality of the disclosing party and the interest to an effective remedy and a fair trial (see, eg, ORD_68844/2024). The competition law impli - cations shall be assessed rigorously and the party shall not limit itself to statement of princi - ples (ORD_20073/2025). Reflecting the typical practice of the Milan IP Chamber, the court has also shown a proactive approach in favouring agreed solutions between the parties, stepping in to resolve the remaining contentious issues. Confidentiality Towards Third Parties The Milan LD has so far also demonstrated a strict approach to confidentiality of the docu - ments on file. This is in line with Italian (and more generally continental) procedural law tra - dition, where decisions are publicly available but case files are not, and can be accessed only in exceptional circumstances. In this framework, the court has observed in particular that access shall not be granted when information sought by the applicant could be obtained otherwise, when the applicant has not shown that access to the requested documents is necessary to protect its stated interest, and when access to the case file of proceedings still pending could influence the defensive strategy of the parties involved (see, eg, order ORD_4166/2025 dated 20 February 2025 in the application for access by Bhagat in the Oerlikon v Himson proceedings). On the other hand, on one occasion the Milan LD has granted access to documents of the case (in
particular, to a request to preserve evidence) to a third party where the concerned party had pro - vided its consent to such access (without preju - dice to the redaction of personal data – see order of 4 December 2023 in the Progress Maschinen v AWM et al case). Partial Stays and Partial Withdrawals Other interesting procedural decisions taken by the Milan LD include the following. • Confirmation that proceedings can be stayed in relation to only one of the patents involved (ORD_26013/2025). Proceedings may con - tinue in respect of the other patents, in rela - tion to which the parties have an interest in concluding the written procedure within the time limits set. Importantly, the same deci - sion confirmed that where all parties request the stay of proceedings pursuant to Rule 295 (d) RoP, the court has no discretion, but must order the stay, despite the use of the word “may” in the rule. This interpretation is based on the general principles that the parties are free to determine the subject matter of their case (Article 43 UPCA), and that the court must decide in accordance with the requests submitted by the parties (Article 76 (1) UPCA). • Confirmation that it is possible to withdraw a claim in relation to only one of the defendants involved in an infringement action, with the consequence that proceedings will continue only in relation to the other defendants, and that such withdrawal shall not come with a cost award when the withdrawal is justified by objective reasons such as the insolvency of the defendant in question (ORD_12831/2025). 1.4 Regional Division Competence This does not apply.
84
CHAMBERS.COM
Powered by FlippingBook