Dainese v Alpinestars (CFI, 24 January 2025)

Date	24 January 2025
Court	CFI
Division	Milan (IT) Local Division
Type of action	Withdrawal (RoP265)
Registry reference	App_63772/2024 · ORD_68843/2024
Parties	Dainese S.p.A.

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.

Contact the firm

Dhenne Avocats · 10 October 2026

Our analysis

Summary

By an order of 24 January 2025 (ORD_68843/2024, UPC_CFI_472/2024), the full panel of the Milan Local Division classified as confidential the settlement between Dainese and the defendant Horizon Moto 95, filed in support of a partial withdrawal (Exhibit 70), together with the information in the withdrawal itself, in the infringement action against Alpinestars and others (EP 4 072 364 and EP 3 498 117). Access was confined, on the Alpinestars and Motocard Bike side, to their lawyers and Alpinestars’ General Counsel, and deferred until the appeal period has run.

Question

May a settlement reached during the proceedings with one co-defendant be withheld from the other defendants, and within what limits?

Decision

Art. 58 UPCA covers confidential information, not trade secrets alone (section 1.2). The agreement is confidential: the parties so agreed, it was concluded during the proceedings, it has economic value and is subject to protective measures, even its existence is confidential, so the whole document is protected (sections 2.2 and 2.3). Absent agreement between the parties or a competition law context, at least one natural person per party and its lawyers must nonetheless have access (sections 3.2 and 3.3). Filing in French did not prejudice the defence, but an English version was ordered (Rule 7.2, section 4). Leave to appeal was granted, the questions being unsettled (section 5).

Key points for practice

Confidentiality of a partial settlement does not deprive the other defendants of restricted access, absent the parties’ agreement.
Practical point: access to confidential information may be deferred to allow an appeal and an application for suspensive effect (section 6).

Provisions applied

Agreement on a Unified Patent Court: Art. 58 and Art. 74
Rules of Procedure: Rules 7.2, 223, 262A, 265 and 354
Case law cited: Milan Local Division, 1 October 2024 (UPC_CFI_400/2024), Milan Local Division, 6 May 2024 (ORD_23384/2024), Munich Local Division, 14 January 2025 (UPC_CFI_145/2024), FUJIFILM v Kodak, Düsseldorf Local Division, 27 March 2024, Düsseldorf Local Division, 23 December 2024 (App_57498/2024), Düsseldorf Local Division (App_6761/2024)

Related decisions

Dainese v Alpinestars, 24 January 2025 (ORD_68844/2024), the same order registered under another number.

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: Unitary patent, Local and central divisions (UPC).

Dhenne Avocats blog: The Transitional Period and the UPC: Coordinating Two Judicial Orders.

Publications by Matthieu Dhenne: Four Questions That Decide a UPC Market Entry, Pleading the Long Arm: What a UPC Statement of Claim Must Carry Beyond Jurisdiction (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

No case number recorded in this record.

Parties

claimantDainese S.p.A.11 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

No other decision in the corpus bears the same case number, and no appeal is documented in the corpus to date.

What the record states

Nature of the act: Withdrawal (RoP265)
Outcome (Dhenne Avocats summary): La division locale classe confidentiels l'accord transactionnel produit à l'appui du désistement partiel et les informations de ce désistement, en réservant un accès restreint et différé aux avocats de deux défenderesses et au General Counsel de l'une d'elles.
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 4 072 364 mentioned in: Dhenne Avocats analysis Follow this patent
EP 3 498 117 mentioned in: Dhenne Avocats analysis Follow this patent

Related decisions cited in the analyses

ALPINESTARS RESEARCH (CFI, 24 January 2025) cited in this record
FUJIFILM v Kodak (CFI, 27 March 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 4 072 364` Protective device and method for making said protective device recorded proprietor: Dainese SpA	Mentioned in the analysis (role not qualified) Also mentioned in 9 other decision(s): Dainese v Alpinestars (CFI, 2 June 2025) · Dainese v Alpinestars (CFI, 7 April 2025) · Dainese v Alpinestars (CoA, 10 September 2026) · Dainese v Alpinestars (CFI, 21 April 2026) · ALPINESTARS RESEARCH v Dainese (CFI, 15 April 2025) · Alpinestars v Dainese (CFI, 8 April 2025) · Dainese v Alpinestars (CFI, 7 February 2025) · Dainese v Alpinestars (CFI, 15 January 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
`EP 3 498 117`	Mentioned in the analysis (role not qualified) Also mentioned in 4 other decision(s): Dainese v Alpinestars (CFI, 2 June 2025) · Dainese v Alpinestars (CFI, 7 April 2025) · Dainese v Alpinestars (CFI, 7 February 2025) · Dainese v Alpinestars (CFI, 15 January 2025)	not recorded	not recorded	not recorded	Espacenet links not checked 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.