Important decision by the UPC Milan Central Division on the issue of late production of documents and on the issue of security for costs (11 April 2025, UPC_CFI_597/2024)

A legal conflict arose between Eoflow Co., Ltd., a South Korean enterprise, and Insulet Corporation, a U.S. entity, regarding the purported infringement of European patent EP 4 201 327, which pertains to a patch insulin pump known as ‘Omnipod 5.’ Insulet initiated proceedings in July 2024, seeking an ex parte preliminary injunction to halt Eoflow's marketing of its ‘EOPatch’ pump. Eoflow responded in October 2024 by filing for patent revocation, leading Insulet to counterclaim for infringement and alternatively request a limitation of the contested patent. Throughout three related proceedings, both parties exchanged two sets of written submissions until early April 2025. In its most recent filing, Eoflow sought permission to submit an additional document in light of a recent appeal decision, proposing the introduction of the U.S. patent (US 6 656 159) as new prior art. Concurrently, Insulet highlighted Eoflow’s precarious financial condition, prompting a request for a security deposit of €1 million for litigation costs. In its ruling, the Central Division emphasized that the Unified Patent Court (UPC) employs a front-loaded procedure, necessitating the submission of all supporting documents, particularly prior art, at the initiation of any action. Eoflow failed to demonstrate the impossibility of earlier production of the US patent, rendering the document inadmissible due to its previous absence in the proceedings. Consequently, the Central Division concluded the written procedure, scheduled an Interim Conference, and set the date for the oral hearing. Moreover, the Central Division addressed Insulet's security for costs request, countering Eoflow’s argument that only defendants could make such claims. It affirmed that any party may be required to provide security if there are substantial doubts regarding its ability to cover potential litigation costs. Given the financial evidence presented by Insulet, which Eoflow did not effectively contest, the Central Division ordered Eoflow to deposit €500,000 within three weeks, emphasizing the possibility of requesting a time extension if needed. Failure to comply may result in default judgment as stipulated by Rule 355 RoP.



This news is summarized and processed by the IP Topics artificial intelligence algorithm.
Read the full article on the original webpage:  https://www.casalonga.com/documentation/contentieux-brevet-jub/juridiction-unifiee-du-brevet-jub/actualites/nouvelle-traduction-decision-importante-de-la-division-centrale-de-milan-concernant-sur-la-question-de-la-production-tardive-de-documents-ainsi-que-sur-celle-de-la-garantie-pour-frais-11-avril-2025-upc_cfi_597-2024.html?lang=en