Home » UPC decisions » Central Division » Milan Central Division » CD Milan, July 22, 2025, decision by default on the revocation action, UPC_CFI_597/2024

CD Milan, July 22, 2025, decision by default on the revocation action, UPC_CFI_597/2024

2 min Reading time

Key takeaways

Failure to comply with a court order (Rule 158 RoP) for security for costs can result in the dismissal of a revocation action by default (Rule 355.2 RoP), especially when the opposing party requests it.

Non-compliance with a legally issued order and a request by a party are prerequisites for a decision by default.

A thorough assessment of patent claims (Art. 69 EPC), description, and drawings is crucial for determining infringement, even if the defendant fails to defend.

Division

Central Division Milan 

UPC number

UPC_CFI_597/2024, ACT_56003/2024

Type of proceedings

Revocation action, Infringement action, Cost decision

Parties

Claimant in the revocation proceedings and Defendant/Counter-defendant to the counterclaim for infringement: EOFLOW Co., Ltd.

Defendant in the revocation proceedings and Claimant/Counter-claimant in the infringement proceedings: INSULET CORPORATION

Patent(s)

EP4201327

Jurisdictions

UPC

Body of legislation / Rules

Rule 355.2 RoP, Rule 158 RoP, Art. 69(4) UPCA, Art. 69 EPC, Art. 63 UPCA, Arts. 64, 67 UPCA, Rule 354.3 RoP, Rule 119 RoP, Article 1(3) of the decision of the Administrative Committee, Rule 150.2 RoP, Rule 220 RoP, Rule 157 RoP, Rule 221 RoP, Rule 356 RoP


Was the article helpful?


Categories


Tags

  • German and European Patent Attorney, UPC Representative, Senior Associate

Stay in the loop

Never miss a beat by subscribing to the email newsletter. Please see our Privacy Policy.

* = Required field