EOFlow v Insulet (CoA, 4 February 2026)

Dhenne Avocats · 10 October 2026

Our analysis

Summary

The Court of Appeal holds inadmissible the appeal by EOFlow Co., Ltd. against the order of the Milan Central Division of 4 December 2025 (UPC_CFI_1167/2025), which, at the request of Insulet Corporation, had imposed penalty payments of EUR 150,000 for non-compliance with the provisional measures ordered by the Court of Appeal on 30 April 2025 on EP 4 201 327, together with EUR 10,000 in costs. The order confirms that an order imposing penalty payments may be appealed only with leave, and that leave must be granted expressly.

Question

May a first instance order imposing penalty payments, and deciding on the costs of those proceedings, be appealed without leave?

Decision

An order imposing penalty payments falls neither under Art. 73(2)(a) UPCA nor under Rule 220.1(c) RoP, Rule 354.4 RoP merely clarifies this, and an appeal requires leave (paragraphs 16 to 19). The Milan Central Division had expressly granted leave on the confidentiality issue but only noted that the penalty was subject to appeal. Leave cannot be presumed (paragraphs 20 to 22). Since no leave was sought, discretionary review under Rule 220.3 RoP is not available (paragraphs 23 and 24). A cost order deciding both who bears the costs and their amount follows the remedy against the main decision, Rule 221 RoP covering only disputes on the amount (paragraph 29). The appeal is dismissed as inadmissible, and the application for suspensive effect fails with it (paragraphs 31 to 33). EOFlow may, within 14 days, cure its appeal on the dismissal of its confidentiality requests, which did not state the order sought (paragraph 34).

Key points for practice

• An appeal against penalty payments imposed at first instance requires express leave, given in the order itself or in a separate order issued within 15 days. A statement that an appeal is possible is not leave (paragraphs 21 and 22).
• Costs fixed in the same order share the fate of the main appeal (paragraphs 29 and 30).

Provisions applied

Agreement on a Unified Patent Court

Arts 73(2)(a) and (b) and 82(4)

Rules of Procedure

Rules 157, 220, 221, 223, 229.1 and 354.4

Case law cited

Insulet v EOFlow, Court of Appeal, 30 April 2025 (UPC_CoA_768/2024), Suinno v Microsoft, Court of Appeal, 9 October 2024, UPC_CoA_586/2024, Photon Wave v Seoul Viosys, Court of Appeal, 15 October 2024, PC 01/2024, Ballinno v Kinexon, Court of Appeal, 12 May 2025, UPC_CoA_328/2024, Total v Texas Instruments, Court of Appeal, 14 January 2025, UPC_CoA_651/2024, Amazon v InterDigital, Court of Appeal, 29 December 2025 (UPC_CoA_936/2025).

Related decisions

• Insulet v EOFlow, 4 December 2025, the Milan Central Division order under appeal.
• EOFlow v Insulet, 29 January 2026, Court of Appeal order on confidentiality in the same appeal.

Prepared by Dhenne Avocats from the official decision, consulted on 10 October 2026. The database is updated every week, on Friday. Only the official text is authoritative.