Insulet v A. Menarini Diagnostics (CoA, APP_68623/2024, 9 January 2025)

Dhenne Avocats · 10 October 2026

Our analysis

Summary

By an order of 9 January 2025 (UPC_CoA_769/2024), the judge-rapporteur of the Court of Appeal (Judge Rombach) dismissed A. Menarini Diagnostics’ request to extend to 30 December 2024 the time limit for its statement of response, in Insulet’s appeal against the Milan Local Division’s refusal of provisional measures (EP 4 201 327). The request was superfluous: where the case management system cannot receive documents, the extension applies automatically.

Question

Must an extension of time be ordered where the respondent could not file its statement of response in the correct electronic workflow because of a technical restriction in the system?

Decision

No extension under Rule 9 was needed, so the request was superfluous (paragraph 9). The Court left open whether the filing of 27 December 2024 by email and in the first-instance workflow sufficed (paragraph 10). If it did not, the time limit had not expired: under Rule 301.1 and 301.2, the extension is automatic, without any order, until the end of the first working day after the Court can again receive documents, here 30 December 2024 (paragraphs 11 and 12).

Key points for practice

• Practical point: when the case management system fails, the party benefits from an automatic extension, recording the incident with the support team remains prudent.

Provisions applied

Rules of Procedure

Rules 9, 235.2, 301.1 and 301.2

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.