Key takeaways
High threshold for intervention in interim injunction proceedings
The Court rejected the request (here: from Menarini) for intervention, emphasizing that Article 313 RoP permits intervention in interim injunction proceedings only under exceptional circumstances. The mere fact that a third party might be affected by the outcome of the proceedings is not sufficient. Rather, the third party needs to demonstrate a direct legal interest that cannot be adequately protected otherwise.
Crucially, the Court found that Menarini’s interests were already adequately represented in parallel proceedings before the LD Milan, where Menarini was a named party. Granting intervention in the CD case, the Court reasoned, would be redundant, potentially causing delays and opening the door for parties to use intervention to compensate for strategic omissions in parallel proceedings. Also, allowing intervention would pose a risk of divergent decisions. Hence, the Court found that the intervener’s interests were already sufficiently protected in parallel proceedings.
The Court ultimately determined that Menarini’s interest in the outcome, while present, was hypothetical and did not outweigh the potential risks associated with allowing intervention.
Hard copy filing of procedural requests
Menarini’s application for intervention was submitted in hard copy due to the absence of a dedicated workflow for third-party interventions in the UPC’s Case Management System (CMS).
Applicant (INSULET) raised a preliminary objection, arguing that Rule 4.1 RoP mandates electronic filing.
The Court confirmed that even though electronic filing is generally required, a procedural request (here: a request for intervention) can be filed in hard copy if the Case Management System (CMS) does not provide the necessary functionalities for filing the request electronically. This pragmatic approach ensures that parties can exercise their procedural rights even in the early implementation phase of the UPC. The decision is based on Rule 4.1, Rule 9 (which allows for alternative filing methods when electronic submission is impossible) and Rule 313 RoP.
Division
Central Division
UPC number
UPC_CFI_380/2024
Type of proceedings
Intervention (Rule 313 RoP) in the context of an application for provisional measures (Rule 206 RoP)
Parties
Applicant: INSULET CORPORATION
Defendant: EOFLOW Co. Ltd
Intervener: A. Menarini Diagnostics s.r.l.
Patent(s)
European Patent with unitary effect UP 4 201 327 C0
Body of legislation / Rules
Rule 4.1 RoP, Rule 9 RoP, Rule 313 RoP, Rule 317 RoP, Article 313 UPCA