MILAN LOCAL DIVISION Law and Practice Contributed by: Vittorio Cerulli Irelli, Lorenzo Battarino and Daniel Borgogni, Trevisan & Cuonzo
Edwards Lifesciences Corporation v Sintec Srl & Value Med Srl Infringement action, filed 6 March 2025 The action concerns the alleged infringement of Edwards’ patent covering a prosthetic valve and delivery catheter. It follows a decision of 19 July 2024 by the Paris CD holding the patent valid in amended form and a decision by the Munich LD (currently under appeal) holding two Meril prod - ucts, allegedly distributed by both defendants in suit, to be infringing. At the time of writing, no public information is available on the substan - tive arguments brought by either side. On 5 May 2025, the court invited both parties to negotiate a settlement while the above-mentioned deci - sions are under appeal. Hypertherm Inc v Tec.Mo. Srl Infringement action, filed 14 March 2025 The case concerns alleged infringement of Hypertherm’s patent covering consumables for a plasma arc cutting torch. It is still in its very early stages – the statement of claims was served on 2 April 2025 – and no public information is yet available on the substantive matters at issue. Primetals Technologies Austria GmbH v Danieli & C. SpA Infringement action, filed 29 April 2025 The case concerns alleged infringement of Primetal’s patent covering a driver for a steel strip coiling installation and was filed after enforcement of a previous order to preserve evi - dence obtained from the same Milan LD. It is still in its very early stages – the statement of claims was served on 16 May 2025 – and no public information is yet available on the substantive matters at issue. 3.4 Technically Qualified Judges The legally qualified judges (LQJs) of the Milan LD are at ease in interacting with the technically
qualified judges (TQJs), due to the established practice in national proceedings of involving court-appointed technical advisers in the case to obtain technical inputs on the validity and infringement of the patent in suit. Such practice is already reflecting how the Milan LD handles its cases, resulting in (i) frequent requests for the appointment of a technically qualified judge to the panel, as soon as technical arguments start being developed by the parties, and (ii) signifi - cant involvement of the appointed TQJs when deciding on technical issues. Additionally, even if the number of decisions issued to date is very limited and none of them has yet addressed inventive step, the role that TQJs are likely to play in the decision-making process of the Milan LD would imply a stronger reliance on the problem-solution approach (PSA) as compared to other LDs. The Milan LD is hence expected to lean towards a more consist - ent EPO-style application of the PSA, influenced by the typical practice of Italian 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 the use of and interaction with technically qualified judges. To date, these have indeed been appointed in all cases where substantive issues were discussed, and it can be expected that – even if not man - dated or requested by the parties – a technically qualified judge will be appointed in most cas - es going forward. Another area of influence of prior national practice is in connection with the approach of the Milan LD to orders to preserve evidence, typically granted any time evidence
90
CHAMBERS.COM
Powered by FlippingBook