A. Menarini Diagnostics v Insulet (CFI, 4 September 2024)

Dhenne Avocats · 10 October 2026

Our analysis

Summary

By order of 4 September 2024 (UPC_CFI_400/2024, ORD_45723/2024, App_45575/2024), the Milan Local Division (P. Perrotti, presiding, A. Zana, judge-rapporteur, A.-L. Klein, U. Schwengelbeck), on A. Menarini Diagnostics’ application under Rule 262A RoP in the provisional measures proceedings brought by Insulet on EP 4 201 327, protected certain passages of its Objection and defined the circle of persons with access, including, with deferred effect, a US lawyer for Insulet.

Question

Which of the defendant’s information deserves protection in urgent proceedings, and who on the applicant’s side may access it?

Decision

The division distinguishes two categories (paragraph 2.1). It doubts that the technical descriptions of the product are confidential, as they appear to reflect choices built into products offered to the public, but protects them out of caution at the urgent stage. Sales figures, market shares and patient numbers, which are not public and could be used by a competitor, are confidential (paragraph 2.4). Recalling that Rule 262A.6 RoP requires access for at least one natural person from each party, the division admits representatives, experts and witnesses, Insulet’s senior IP counsel and a partner of a US law firm, so as to preserve adversarial proceedings and a common defence strategy across jurisdictions (paragraphs 3.2 to 3.5). The latter’s access opens only once the appeal period and a further week to seek suspensive effect have elapsed (paragraph 5). Leave to appeal is granted, as the questions are far from settled (paragraph 4).

Key points for practice

• Practical point: a party seeking confidentiality should expect the confidentiality club to include counsel from parallel foreign proceedings, although the division may defer that access to allow an appeal.

Provisions applied

Agreement on a Unified Patent Court

Arts. 58 and 74

Rules of Procedure

Rules 220.2, 223, 262A and 354

Directive (EU) 2016/943

Arts. 2(1) and 9(2)

Case law cited

Dexcom v Abbott, Paris Local Division, 19 December 2023 (UPC_CFI_230/2023), Düsseldorf Local Division, App_6761/2024 (ACT_578607/2023), Düsseldorf Local Division, UPC_CFI_355/2023

Related decisions

• Insulet v A. Menarini Diagnostics, 1 October 2024, decision on the application for provisional measures.
• A. Menarini Diagnostics v Insulet, 1 October 2024, order on an application to intervene.

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.