Dainese v Alpinestars (CFI, 21 April 2026)

Dhenne Avocats · 10 October 2026

Our analysis

Summary

In a decision of 21 April 2026, the Milan Local Division ruled on Dainese’s infringement action against Alpinestars S.p.A., Alpinestars Research and Motocard Bike, and on the counterclaims for revocation, concerning EP 4 072 364 (an inflatable protective device of the airbag vest type). The Division upholds the patent as defended in the main request and dismisses the infringement action against the Tech-Air 3 and Tech-Air 10 vests. The decision is of interest to practitioners on three points: jurisdiction over a Spanish distributor under Art. 8(1) of Regulation 1215/2012, a stay confined to the Spanish part of the patent because of a national nullity action, and the strict application of front-loading to inventive step attacks.

Facts and procedure

The action, brought on 8 August 2024 against six defendants on two patents, ultimately concerned only EP 4 072 364 and defendants 1, 2 and 6, after withdrawal as to the other patent and defendants 3 to 5 (paragraphs 1 to 5 and 10). It was heard together with the counterclaims in proceedings UPC_CFI_472/2024, 792/2024, 831/2024 and 182/2025. The patent had been maintained in amended form by the EPO Opposition Division, a decision appealed by Alpinestars, and a nullity action against the Spanish part had been pending in Spain since 27 February 2025 (paragraphs 47 and 48). On 27 February 2025 Dainese filed a main request combining granted claims 1, 5 and 7 (paragraphs 7 and 50 to 52). Security for costs was ordered on 17 September 2025 (paragraph 9) and the oral hearing took place on 10 March 2026.

The applicable law

Jurisdiction over the Spanish distributor rests on Art. 8(1) of Regulation 1215/2012, read with Art. 71b, and the exclusive jurisdiction of the Spanish courts over the validity of the Spanish part on Art. 24(4). Validity is assessed under Art. 54(3), 56 and 138(1)(a) EPC, and the stay under Rule 295 RoP.

Question

Could the Division hear claims concerning acts in Spain by the distributor Motocard Bike, should it stay the proceedings, and is the patent, valid as amended, infringed by the Tech-Air 3 and Tech-Air 10 vests?

Decision

Motocard Bike’s jurisdictional objection is dismissed: the conditions of Art. 8(1) are met, with a risk of irreconcilable judgments on the same factual and legal situation, and the distributor could foresee being sued alongside the suppliers whose products it resells (paragraphs 27 to 37). The Division declines to stay pending the reference made by the Court of Appeal on 6 March 2026 or the EPO appeal (paragraphs 20 to 22, 45 and 46), but stays the infringement claim for Spain until the Spanish nullity decision becomes final (paragraphs 39 to 44).

On validity, the Division construes ‘mesh’, ‘plurality of housings’, the second region and the ‘hand’ or ‘comb’ shape (paragraphs 57 to 68), rejects the clarity and sufficiency objections (paragraphs 69 to 72), upholds the Italian priority (paragraphs 73 to 76) and finds novelty (paragraphs 81 to 96). Several inventive step attacks are inadmissible as late (paragraphs 99 and 100), those based on D1 with D11 and on the Bering vest with the Spidi jacket fail (paragraphs 101 to 108). The main request stands (paragraph 109). On infringement, only literal infringement being pleaded, the second region cannot be negligible and must lie where the airbag expands: neither the Tech-Air 3 nor the Tech-Air 10 has it, and the action is dismissed (paragraphs 113 to 124).

The order dismisses the jurisdictional objection, severs and stays the claim concerning Spanish territory until the final decision on the validity of the Spanish part, dismisses the counterclaims against the patent as amended before the Opposition Division and the infringement action, and sets the value of the case at EUR 12,000,000 (EUR 6,000,000 for each action, paragraphs 125 to 127). Each party bears its own costs on grounds of equity, given the dismissal of the objections, the maintenance of the amended patent, the dismissal of infringement and the complexity of the case (paragraphs 128 and 129). The defendants’ request for a partial refund of court fees is rejected, Rule 370.7 RoP referring to a single action rather than a single set of proceedings (paragraphs 130 and 131).

Key points for practice

• A distributor based outside the Division’s territory may be sued alongside its suppliers under Art. 8(1) where it markets the same contested products.
• A national nullity action may lead to a stay confined to the territory concerned, the UPC keeping the rest of the dispute.
• Inventive step attacks not raised in the first written pleadings are disregarded, even when they rely on prior art already on file.
• Practical point: the same construction of a feature (here, a second region that is not negligible) governs both validity and infringement, the proprietor should weigh both effects from the main request onwards.

Provisions applied

Agreement on a Unified Patent Court

Arts 31, 34, 69 and 76

Rules of Procedure

Rules 19, 30.2, 104, 105, 171.2, 295, 370.6 and 370.7

European Patent Convention

Art. 54(3), Art. 56, Art. 138(1)(a)

Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012

Art. 4, 7(2), 8(1), 24(4) and 71b

Case law cited

Amgen v Sanofi-Aventis, Court of Appeal, 25 November 2025, Meril v Edwards, Court of Appeal, 25 November 2025, Dyson v Dreame, Court of Appeal, 6 March 2026 (reference to the CJEU), DexCom v Abbott, Paris Local Division, 4 July 2024, Abbott Diabetes Care v Sibio, The Hague Local Division, 19 June 2024, CJEU, 25 February 2025, BSH Hausgeräte v Electrolux, C-339/22

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.