Dainese v Alpinestars (CFI, 2 June 2025)

Date	2 June 2025
Court	CFI
Division	Milan (IT) Local Division
Type of action	Generic application
Registry reference	App_25321/2025 · ORD_26013/2025
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 order of 2 June 2025, the judge rapporteur of the Milan Local Division stayed, at the joint request of all parties, the revocation counterclaims and applications to amend concerning EP 3 498 117 in Dainese v Alpinestars, until the final decision of the EPO Opposition Division. The proceedings on EP 4 072 364 continue on the existing timetable. The order holds that a joint request for a stay under Rule 295(d) binds the Court and that a stay may be confined to one of the patents in suit.

Question

Does the Court retain any discretion where all parties jointly request a stay, and may the stay be limited to one of two patents?

Decision

Despite the word « may » in Rule 295(d), the Court must order a stay requested by all parties, by reason of Arts 43 and 76(1) UPCA, which leave the subject matter of the dispute to the parties. A partial stay is permissible (paragraph 12). It was appropriate here because EP 3 498 117, maintained in amended form by the Board of Appeal on 13 February 2025 and remitted to the Opposition Division to adapt the description, is not yet in final form, and Dainese had already withdrawn its infringement claims based on that patent (paragraphs 11, 13 and 15). EP 4 072 364, which is the subject of pending infringement proceedings, stays on schedule (paragraphs 14 and 16).

Key points for practice

A joint request for a stay under Rule 295(d) is treated as binding: the Court merely checks its scope.
A stay can be split patent by patent where one patent is still being adapted before the EPO and the other has to be tried.

Provisions applied

Agreement on a Unified Patent Court: Arts 43 and 76(1)
Rules of Procedure: Preamble (point 2) and Rules 263.3 and 295(d)
Case law cited: Dolby v HP, Düsseldorf Local Division, 29 October 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.

Going further

Lexicon: Written procedure (UPC), Court fees and costs (UPC).

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: Generic application
Outcome (Dhenne Avocats summary): Saisie d'une demande conjointe de toutes les parties, la Cour doit ordonner la suspension au titre de la règle 295(d), elle suspend les demandes reconventionnelles et de modification visant EP 3 498 117 jusqu'à la décision finale de la division d'opposition, la procédure sur EP 4 072 364 se poursuivant.
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 3 498 117 mentioned in: summary of the decision, Dhenne Avocats analysis Follow this patent
EP 4 072 364 mentioned in: summary of the decision, Dhenne Avocats analysis Follow this patent

Related decisions cited in the analyses

Dolby International v HP Deutschland (CFI, 29 October 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 3 498 117`	Patent at issue according to the summary or official headnote Also mentioned in 4 other decision(s): Dainese v Alpinestars (CFI, 7 April 2025) · Dainese v Alpinestars (CFI, 7 February 2025) · Dainese v Alpinestars (CFI, 24 January 2025) · Dainese v Alpinestars (CFI, 15 January 2025)	not recorded	not recorded	not recorded	Espacenet links not checked mentioned in: summary of the decision, Dhenne Avocats analysis
`EP 4 072 364` Protective device and method for making said protective device recorded proprietor: Dainese SpA	Patent at issue according to the summary or official headnote Also mentioned in 9 other decision(s): 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, 24 January 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: summary of the decision, 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.