ITALY Trends and Developments Contributed by: Giovanni F Casucci, EY Tax & Law
rely on homogeneous and comparable data. IP and trade secrets cases, therefore, need to be categorised into interlocutory and ordinary pro - ceedings before making any meaningful assess - ment. Properly proportioned speed metrics would show that: • around 90% of Italian IP and trade secrets cases are brought or addressed through inter - locutory proceedings; • approximately half of the cases instituted via interlocutory proceedings are settled as a result of decisions rendered at this preliminary stage; • the average time for resolving interlocutory matters in trade secrets and patent disputes does not exceed 18 months (barring excep - tional cases), while trademark and design matters are typically resolved within six months; and • the average duration of ordinary litigation is around 40 months, but this figure should be seen in context: such proceedings include both the finding of infringement and the assessment of damages – whereas in other jurisdictions, these issues are often handled in separate trials. Given this data, it is reasonable to conclude that Italy ranks among the fastest countries in interlocutory phases and sits around the average when it comes to the overall duration of full trials, including damage assessments. This reflects a legal system that is highly respon - sive to the economic and temporal needs of par - ties involved in IP and trade secrets litigation. For this reason, Italy should be considered an attractive initial venue – particularly for evidence-
gathering measures – as a prelude to broader cross-border litigation. The Cross-Border Perspective of the Italian Jurisdiction Trade secrets violations fall under the broader legal categories of unfair competition and tort. As an unregistered right without territorial lim - its, trade secrets are internationally recognised under the TRIPS Agreement (Article 39) and gov - erned within the EU by directly applicable provi - sions of the Trade Secrets Directive. Accordingly, any EU court, or court in a country party to the Lugano Convention, may rule with cross-border effect. Italy is well-positioned in this respect due to several factors. Moreover, due to the recent position of the CJEU in the case (C‑339/22) on BSH/ELECTROLUX, the author expects an increase in cases with cross-border effect not only involving patents but also trade secrets, frequently combined together. The Application of the Co-Defendant Rules Italian courts have taken an EU-conscious approach to Article 8.1 of Regulation 1215/2012, which concerns civil and commercial matters. In a 2018 design case, the Milan Court allowed several companies connected through corporate relationships to be jointly sued for both injunc - tive relief and damages. This decision effectively anticipated the CJEU’s 2023 ruling in C-832/21 by five years. Such an approach permits a sin - gle legal action against multiple entities across different jurisdictions, avoiding duplicated pro - ceedings in each country. Evidence-Gathering Measures The Italian descrizione order, in the author’s view, served as the model for Articles 6 and 7 of the
154 CHAMBERS.COM
Powered by FlippingBook