MILAN LOCAL DIVISION Law and Practice Contributed by: Vittorio Cerulli Irelli, Lorenzo Battarino and Daniel Borgogni, Trevisan & Cuonzo
the value of the case determined by the court. Even though the Milan LD held that the ceiling for recoverable costs associated with the value of the case should not be automatically reached in all cases and should be reserved for cases where the complexity of the issues, the number of patents or the number of parties involved jus - tifies reaching such ceiling, the court awarded costs amounting to about 65% of the ceiling (see also 5.3 Costs Awards ). Order of 5 November 2024 (Cardo Systems v Shenzhen Asmax: application for provisional measures) The Milan LD (in the person of the single judge Mr Granata, competent under Rule 208.2 RoP) issued an ex parte order (ORD_59913/2024) enjoining the defendant from marketing, distrib - uting and selling a Bluetooth communication device for motorcycle helmets which was con - sidered to be infringing the applicant’s patent rights. The order was issued ex parte (against the payment of a security in the amount of EUR100,000 within a period of ten days from service of the decision of the court, with the clarification that enforcement could start even before payment of the security) in view of the upcoming exhibition of the infringing product at the International Motorcycle Exhibition (EICMA) to be held in Milan, which is one of the most rel - evant trade fairs in the world for the motorcycle industry.
the Milan LD reasoned that auxiliary requests to amend the patent pursuant to Rule 30.2 RoP are inadmissible in proceedings for provisional measures. This is consistent with the principle of expediency of proceedings. According to the Milan LP, auxiliary requests to amend the patent are expressly admitted only in the defence to a counterclaim for revocation (Rule 30.2 RoP) or in the defence to revocation (Rule 50.2 RoP), and may therefore be lodged only in the main pro - ceedings, before the court having jurisdiction to issue a final decision on the validity of the patent. Subsequent appeal proceedings brought by Insulet were settled before reaching a decision. Notably, the same patent enforced herein was later held to be preliminarily (ie, more likely than not) valid by the Court of Appeal in Luxembourg in parallel proceedings brought by the same plaintiff against another manufacturer of insulin pumps. 3.2 Leading Cases The Milan Local Division has developed signifi - cant expertise in the granting of orders to pre - serve evidence, contributing to the formation of a significant body of precedents and to the progressive consolidation of case law on vari - ous substantive and procedural aspects of such measures. In particular, in Progress Maschinen v AWM, with clarification from the Court of Appeal, it was established that the time limit to initiate infringement proceedings on the merits, following the execution of a preservation meas - ure, begins to run from the moment the appli - cant gains access to the expert’s report and the material collected during the execution of the order (see 4.6 Court of Appeal Procedural Jurisprudence for additional details). Further proceedings for the preservation of evi - dence handled by the Milan LD have established
Order of 22 November 2024 (Insulet v Menarini: application for provisional measures)
The application was decided in favour of the defendant, rejecting the application for pro - visional measures for lack of certainty on the validity of the patent (held to be more likely than not invalid for lack of novelty). An interesting ele - ment of the decision (ORD_56587/2024) is that
87
CHAMBERS.COM
Powered by FlippingBook