A. Menarini Diagnostics v Insulet (CFI, 1 October 2024)

Date	1 October 2024
Court	CFI
Division	Milan (IT) Local Division
Type of action	Procedural Order
Case number(s)	UPC_CFI_400/2024
Registry reference	App_40442/2024 · ORD_51903/2024 · UPC_CFI_400/2024
Parties	A. Menarini Diagnostics s.r.l. v. Insulet Corporation

Official decision (PDF) · UPC registry entry

Case timeline

4 September 2024 : A. Menarini Diagnostics v Insulet (CFI, 4 September 2024) App_40442/2024 · ORD_45723/2024 · UPC_CFI_400/2024
1 October 2024 : Insulet v A. Menarini Diagnostics (CFI, 1 October 2024) ACT_40442/2024 · ORD_51903/2024 · UPC_CFI_400/2024

Dhenne Avocats represents claimants and defendants in European patent disputes before the Unified Patent Court, including the Paris divisions.

Contact the firm

Dhenne Avocats · 10 October 2026

Our analysis

Summary

By order of 1 October 2024 (UPC_CFI_400/2024, ORD_51903/2024, App_40442/2024), the Milan Local Division (P. Perrotti, presiding, A. Zana, judge-rapporteur, A.-L. Klein, U. Schwengelbeck) dismissed the application by EOFLOW, manufacturer of the accused insulin pump, to intervene in support of its exclusive distributor A. Menarini Diagnostics in Insulet’s provisional measures proceedings based on EP 4 201 327. On the same day, the Milan Central Division rejected Menarini’s mirror application to intervene in the parallel proceedings against EOFLOW (UPC_CFI_380/2024).

Question

May a manufacturer that is already the respondent in parallel proceedings intervene in interim proceedings against its distributor?

Decision

Rule 313.1 RoP allows intervention « at any stage of the proceedings », which points towards admissibility in interim proceedings (section 2.4), but the division refuses it after a balancing exercise (section 3). The intervention procedure could not be completed before the hearing of 15 October 2024 and would unduly slow the interim proceedings. EOFLOW, probably aware of the case since July 2024, acted only about thirty days before the hearing, and its arguments are already before the Court in the parallel case. Provisional measures have no res judicata effect. EOFLOW’s interest as a supplier exposed to contractual warranties is only indirect, and its direct interest is protected elsewhere. Insulet’s interest in a swift decision prevails.

Key points for practice

Practical point: in interim proceedings, intervention by a supplier or distributor already party to parallel proceedings runs up against the need for speed, especially when it comes late.

Provisions applied

Rules of Procedure: Preamble, point 2, Rules 206, 313 and 314
Case law cited: Düsseldorf Local Division, 26 June 2024, UPC_CFI_457/2023, Vienna Local Division, 30 July 2024, UPC_CFI_33/2024

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.

Decisions in the same proceedings

A. Menarini Diagnostics v Insulet (CFI, 2024-09-04), 4 September 2024
Insulet v A. Menarini Diagnostics (CFI, 2024-10-01), 1 October 2024

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

Only the official text is authoritative. A machine translation is never presented as official, republishing a third-party document requires a verified basis in rights, and a link to the source is preferred.

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

UPC_CFI_400/2024 official number

Follow this case

Parties

defendantInsulet Corporation26 decisions in the corpus Follow this party
claimantA. Menarini Diagnostics s.r.l9 decisions in the corpus Follow this party

Exact name as it appears in the record, group affiliation only where sourced and dated.

Decisions in the same proceedings and documented appeals

4 September 2024 A. Menarini Diagnostics v Insulet (CFI, 4 September 2024) Procedural Order · UPC_CFI_400/2024
La division protège les données commerciales et, par prudence, les descriptions techniques de Menarini, ouvre l'accès aux représentants, experts, au responsable propriété intellectuelle d'Insulet et, à effet différé, à un avocat américain, et autorise l'appel.
1 October 2024 A. Menarini Diagnostics v Insulet (CFI, 1 October 2024) Procedural Order · UPC_CFI_400/2024
1 October 2024 Insulet v A. Menarini Diagnostics (CFI, 1 October 2024) Application for provisional measures · UPC_CFI_400/2024
L'intervention du fabricant EOFlow dans la procédure de mesures provisoires visant son distributeur est déclarée irrecevable, l'intérêt du demandeur à une décision rapide prévalant.

What the record states

Nature of the act: Procedural Order
Outcome (Dhenne Avocats summary): La division locale de Milan rejette la demande d'intervention d'EOFLOW au soutien de son distributeur Menarini, l'exigence de célérité du référé et la protection de son intérêt dans la procédure parallèle l'emportant.
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 4 201 327 mentioned in: Dhenne Avocats analysis Follow this patent

Related decisions cited in the analyses

Insulet v A. Menarini Diagnostics (CFI, 1 October 2024) cited in this record
A. Menarini Diagnostics v Insulet (CFI, 4 September 2024) cited in this record

Scope: Dhenne Avocats corpus. Registry-based links are marked “official number”; links derived from the analyses are marked as such. An erroneous link can be withdrawn without deleting any record.

Patents and standards

Publication	Role in the dispute	Family	Standard and declaration	Pool	Sources
`EP 4 201 327` Fluid 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

The statuses “asserted in litigation”, “declared essential”, “listed by a pool” and “essentiality examined by a court” are distinct and may coexist. Validity, infringement and technical essentiality are different questions. Scope: patents cited in the decisions of the Dhenne Avocats corpus, with no essentiality score or prediction.

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.