EOFLOW v Insulet (CFI, 15 February 2025)
| Date | 15 February 2025 |
|---|---|
| Court | CFI |
| Division | Milan (IT) Central Division- Section |
| Type of action | Generic application |
| Registry reference | App_5366/2025 · ORD_7828/2025 |
| Parties | Insulet Corporation |
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.
Dhenne Avocats · 10 October 2026
Our analysis
Summary
By an order of 15 February 2025 (ORD_65815/2024, UPC_CFI_380/2024), Andrea Postiglione, judge rapporteur in the Milan Central Division, dismissed without examining the substance EOFLOW Co., Ltd.’s application for its costs in the provisional measures proceedings brought by Insulet Corporation on EP 4 201 327, which had been dismissed. The order settles a question of timing: the costs of provisional measures proceedings followed by an action on the merits or by an appeal are decided with the merits.
Question
May a party that has defeated an application for provisional measures recover its costs immediately, while merits proceedings and an appeal are pending?
Decision
The judge noted that Rule 150 provides for cost proceedings after the decision on the merits, and that Art. 69 UPCA lays down a general rule not confined to merits decisions (paragraphs 10 to 12). Following the same division’s order of 23 December 2024, he accepted that some sub-proceedings may ground a costs claim, but only where they fully satisfy the applicant and end at the interim stage (paragraphs 15 to 18). That is not so where a merits action follows, here Insulet’s infringement counterclaim, or where the order is appealed (paragraphs 19 to 21). The summary nature of interim review, the risk of double assessment and of non-final payments, and the principles of proportionality and flexibility justify deciding costs together with the merits (paragraphs 22 to 28). Leave to appeal was granted.
Key points for practice
- The costs of provisional measures proceedings followed by an action on the merits are assessed at the end of that action, not separately.
- A free-standing costs claim is only possible where the interim proceedings fully satisfy the applicant and no merits action follows.
Provisions applied
- Agreement on a Unified Patent Court
- Art. 69
- Rules of Procedure
- Rules 150, 151, 157, 206, 213, 221 and 295
- Case law cited
- Milan Central Division order of 23 December 2024 (ORD_59988/2024), Court of Appeal, App. 283/2025 (date not stated)
Related decisions
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.
Going further
Lexicon: Supplementary protection certificate (SPC), Biosimilar medicinal product, Launch at risk.
Dhenne Avocats blog: Pharmaceutical patents and the UPC: is the Court hostile to them?.
Publications by Matthieu Dhenne: The Launch Letter: How Generics and Biosimilars Should Write to Avoid UPC Urgency (Kluwer Patent Blog).
Source and translations
- Official source
- Unified Patent Court registry link recorded in the record
- Original language
- not recorded
- Translation available
- no translation recorded the firm’s French record is a summary, not a translation
- Date checked
- not recorded
Follow this case
Proceedings, related decisions, appeals, parties and patents as recorded in the registry and in the Dhenne Avocats corpus. Each link states its source.
Proceedings
Parties
- claimantInsulet Corporation26 decisions in the corpusFollow this party
Decisions in the same proceedings and documented appeals
What the record states
- Nature of the act
- Generic application
- Outcome (Dhenne Avocats summary)
- Le juge rapporteur rejette sans examen au fond la demande de frais d'EOFLOW, les frais de la procédure de mesures provisoires devant être appréciés à l'issue de la procédure au fond et de l'appel pendant.
- Appeal
- No appeal documented in the corpus, this does not mean that no appeal was lodged.
- Instance
- First-instance decision, whether it has become final is not recorded.
Patents mentioned
EP 4 201 327mentioned in: Dhenne Avocats analysis Follow this patent
Related decisions cited in the analyses
- Insulet v A. Menarini Diagnostics (CFI, 23 December 2024) cited in this record
- Insulet v EOFLOW (CFI, 22 November 2024) cited in this record
- EOFLOW (CFI, 15 February 2025) cites this decision
Patents and standards
| Publication | Role in the dispute | Family | Standard and declaration | Pool | Sources |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
EP 4 201 327Fluid delivery device with transcutaneous access tool, insertion mechanism and blood glucose monitoring for use therewith recorded proprietor: Insulet Corp | Mentioned in the analysis (role not qualified) Also mentioned in 25 other decision(s): EOFLOW v Insulet (CFI, 22 July 2025) · EOFLOW v Insulet (CoA, 18 March 2026) · EOFlow v Insulet (CoA, 26 February 2026) · EOFlow v Insulet (CoA, 4 February 2026) · EOFlow v Insulet (CoA, 29 January 2026) · Herbert Smith Freehills Kramer (applicant) in Insulet v EOFLow (CoA, 2 · Insulet v EOFLOW (CFI, 15 October 2025) · EOFLOW v Insulet (CFI, ORD_26828/2025, 5 June 2025) | not recorded | not recorded | not recorded | Espacenet · European Patent Register existence and title of the publication checked on 30 October 2026 (Google Patents, Espacenet and Register links are not checked automatically) mentioned in: Dhenne Avocats analysis |
Receive an alert
Weekly summary of new records and substantive updates matching what you follow. Address confirmed by email, unsubscribe at any time, one email per week even where several of your follows match.