EOFLOW v INSULET (CFI, 24 September 2024)

Dhenne Avocats · 10 October 2026

Our analysis

Summary

By an order of 24 September 2024 (UPC_CFI_380/2024), the panel of the Milan Central Division (A. Postiglione, presiding judge and judge-rapporteur, A.-L. Klein, U. Schwengelbeck), seised by EOFLOW Co., Ltd. under Rule 333, approved the judge-rapporteur’s order of 4 September 2024 (App_48857/2024) refusing to join INSULET Corporation’s application for provisional measures based on EP 4 201 327 with the parallel case brought before the Milan Local Division against the Italian distributor MENARINI. Leave to appeal was granted. The order sets the framework for joinder under Article 33 UPCA and Rule 340.

Question

Outside the cases of mandatory consolidation under Article 33 UPCA, is a party entitled to have provisional measures proceedings joined with a parallel case, and may the judge-rapporteur decide alone?

Decision

Outside Article 33(2) and (4), joinder is a discretionary case management measure, to be exercised proportionately. No party has a right to it (paragraphs 14 to 16 and 23). The risk of divergent decisions is minimal, since the same two judges sit on both panels, and provisional measures orders have no res judicata effect and may be revoked (paragraphs 17 to 22). Findings on validity remain provisional (paragraphs 24 to 27). Holding the hearings in parallel met EOFLOW’s concerns (paragraph 28). As to Rule 340, an order granting joinder is for the panel, as it affects the other proceedings. A refusal, which requires only consultation, may be made by the judge-rapporteur (Rule 1.2) (paragraphs 29 to 42).

Key points for practice

• Practical point: a party seeking joinder under Rule 340 must show a concrete benefit for the administration of justice, a refusal may come from the judge-rapporteur alone.

Provisions applied

Agreement on a Unified Patent Court

Art. 33(1)(b), (2) and (4) and Art. 73(2)(b)

Rules of Procedure

Rules 1.2, 198.1, 211.2, 211.3, 213, 220.2, 224.1, 302, 333, 340, 361 and 362

Case law cited

Court of Appeal, 5 September 2024, UPC_CoA_106/2024

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.