Insulet v EOFLOW (CFI, 2025-12-04)
| Date | 2025-12-04 |
|---|---|
| Court | CFI |
| Division | Milan (IT) Central Division- Section |
| Type of action | Application RoP262A |
| Case number(s) | UPC_CFI_1167/2025 |
| Registry reference | UPC_CFI_1167/2025n/AUPC_CFI_1167/2025 |
| Parties | Insulet Corporation v. EOFLOW Co., Ltd. |
| Language | English |
Holding
The Milan Central Division ordered EOFLOW to pay a penalty of EUR 150,000 for violating the preliminary injunction granted by the Court of Appeal on 30 April 2025, on the basis of evidence that EOFLOW had exported 11,520 insulin pump devices to Italy and Sweden between May and July 2025 in breach of that injunction, and ordered EOFLOW to reimburse EUR 10,000 in legal costs. The court dismissed the parties' confidentiality applications under Rules 262.2 and 262A RoP, and declined to apply retroactively the stricter penalty terms specified by the Milan Central Division in July 2025 to conduct predating that specification, reasoning that a party cannot be forced to comply with terms only specified in detail at a later date.
Why it matters
The order shows how the UPC enforces its own provisional measures: penalty payments are assessed against the terms of the injunction as they stood at the time of the conduct, documentary evidence such as air waybills naming the enjoined party as shipper can establish the violation, and attempts to attribute the shipments to a distributor were rejected as, in the court's words, “artificial and not evidence-based”. The dismissal of the confidentiality requests is equally instructive: information already discussed in the publicly available interim conference and oral hearing no longer meets the requirement that confidentiality be effectively ensured, so protection must be sought before the information enters the public record. The penalty was set with express reference to the deliberate continuation of the conduct in defiance of a binding order.
Practical point
An enjoined party that continues supplying through a distributor remains exposed where transport documents identify it as shipper, and confidentiality under Rule 262A must be requested before the material is aired in open proceedings.
Official decision (PDF) · UPC registry entry
Dhenne Avocats represents claimants and defendants in European patent disputes before the Unified Patent Court, including the Paris divisions.