MILAN LOCAL DIVISION Law and Practice Contributed by: Vittorio Cerulli Irelli, Lorenzo Battarino and Daniel Borgogni, Trevisan & Cuonzo
in other IPC classes – one in IPC classes B and F (mechanical engineering, lighting, heating, weapons, blasting), one in IPC classes B and E (fixed constructions), and one in IPC classes A and C (chemistry, metallurgy). 2.4 Time Lines The Milan LD seems to be generally on track with the general target set by the UPC of 12–14 months from filing to issuing a first instance decision on the merits, with a slight delay in some cases due to difficulties with service of the statements of claim which can end up taking significant time, particularly in cases requiring service under The Hague Convention. 2.5 Interaction Between Central and Local/Regional Divisions One case that involved an interaction between the Milan LD and the Milan Central Division is the Insulet v Menarini case, where Insulet applied for provisional measures against Menarini (the distributor of the allegedly infringing product). Insulet also commenced proceedings before the Milan Central Division requesting preliminary measures against the manufacturer of the alleg - edly infringing product, EOFlow. The latter then applied to intervene in the urgent proceedings before the Milan LD in support of its distribu - tor, but the court dismissed such application (ORD_51903/2024), noting that albeit an appli - cation to intervene is in principle compatible with urgent proceedings, under the specific cir - cumstances the proceedings would have been excessively slowed down. Adopting a similar position, the Milan Central Division also dis - missed an application to intervene by Menarini in those proceedings, in support of the position of EOFlow, citing as well the risk that urgent pro - ceedings would be excessively slowed down under the circumstances.
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), so as to ensure some co-ordination in the outcome of the two cases.
3. Substantive Law 3.1 Topics Covered
So far, the Milan LD has issued a limited number of substantive decisions, namely the following. Decision of 4 November 2024 (Oerlikon v Bhagat: infringement action) The case was decided in favour of the plain - tiff Oerlikon, finding the patent both valid and infringed. Since the focus of the case was on liability resulting from showing an infringing machine in the course of a trade fair, the deci - sion only addresses issues such as liability in principle for damages (under Rule 118.5 RoP, the court considered that Oerlikon had proven to have suffered damages) and a provisional award thereof (awarded in the amount of EUR15,000 against a request of EUR100,000 by Oerlikon). It also addressed the request of disclosure of information to determine the amount of dam- ages (which was denied, noting that it would be more efficient to address the issue in the subse - quent proceedings for damages), publication of the decision (again denied due to the very limited scope of the infringing activities), and the allo - cation of costs in principle (to be borne by the defendant, but compensated by 20% between the parties in light of the circumstances of the case and the procedural conduct of the parties). With a subsequent order (ORD_n. 22179/2025) the amount of costs was determined, based on
86
CHAMBERS.COM
Powered by FlippingBook