ITALY Trends and Developments Contributed by: Giovanni F Casucci, EY Tax & Law
Italy: The Country Most Involved in Litigation According to the EUIPO’s June 2023 report on “Trade Secrets Litigation Trends in the EU” , Italy emerges as the most active jurisdiction. The report highlights Italy among the member states with “disproportionately high trade secrets litiga- tion levels” . Interestingly, Table 1 of the report, which com - pares actual versus expected litigation volumes, suggests, with reference to patent litigation, that Germany should be handling 278 cases annu - ally, France 116, the Netherlands 77, and Italy just 47. However, a 2021 study by Juve Patent reported that Germany was actually managing 714 cases, the Netherlands 131, Milan alone 108, and France 84. This even excludes the caseload from all other Italian IP courts, which would raise the total figure to over 250. A similar trend is reflected in recent UPC data. According to the 2024 Annual Report (p 77), the Italian Local Division in Milan ranks second in activity after the German divisions (Munich, Düs - seldorf, Mannheim, Hamburg), and is ahead of both the Netherlands (The Hague) and France (Paris). It is evident, then, that Italy is among the most active jurisdictions for IP litigation and leads specifically in trade secrets cases. This trend clearly cannot be explained by expected litiga - tion volumes based on GDP. It is also worth noting that trade secrets cases often involve economic stakes in the range of millions or even billions of euros – frequently sur - passing the average values at issue in patent or other IP litigation. The author would like to offer an alternative interpretation: Germany’s high volume of pat -
ent cases is largely a result of the established reputation of its courts and judges. Italy, by con - trast, is involved in a large number of cases due to actual market demand and responsiveness, rather than any specific renown attached to the Italian courts and judges. A Unique System With 11 Specialised Courts Since the 2003 reform, which introduced spe - cialised sections for industrial property (encom - passing IP rights and trade secrets), the Italian judiciary has consistently given particular atten - tion to this area, which is heavily influenced by EU legislation and CJEU case law. This attention is most evident in the manage - ment of procedural timeframes, which benefit from preferential treatment compared to ordinary civil litigation. Following subsequent reforms, in 2014 a selected group of 11 courts (half of the 22 courts compe - tent in IP civil litigation) was designated to priori - tise IP litigation involving foreign parties, wheth - er as claimants or defendants. This move was in line with recommendations in the European Trademark and Design Regulations encouraging member states to nominate a limited number of courts empowered to handle counterclaims for nullity and injunctions across the EU. The Real Timeframe of Industrial Litigation in Italy Time is a key consideration in Italian litigation, and both substantive and procedural rules are structured to ensure efficient case management. Of course, like any legal mechanism, it must be properly understood and effectively applied. The notion that Italy is the slowest jurisdiction for handling IP and trade secrets litigation should be called into question. Any credible statistics must
153 CHAMBERS.COM
Powered by FlippingBook