EOFLOW v Insulet (CFI, 1 October 2024)

Date	1 October 2024
Court	CFI
Division	Milan (IT) Central Division- Section
Type of action	Generic Order
Registry reference	ORD_52068/2024
Parties	EOFLOW Co., Ltd. v. Insulet Corporation

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 1 October 2024 (UPC_CFI_380/2024, ORD_52068/2024), the Milan Central Division (A. Postiglione, presiding and judge-rapporteur, A.-L. Klein, U. Schwengelbeck) rejected the application to intervene by A. Menarini Diagnostics, exclusive distributor of the accused product, in Insulet’s provisional measures proceedings against EOFLOW based on EP 4 201 327. Menarini is already the respondent to a parallel application before the Milan Local Division (UPC_CFI_400/2024).

Question

May a non-party file its application to intervene on paper, and does a distributor already sued in parallel proceedings have an interest in intervening in interim proceedings?

Decision

The objection based on non-electronic filing is rejected: no case management system workflow was open to Menarini as a non-party, and refusing paper filing would unduly restrict the right to intervene, the application is admissible. On the merits, intervention in provisional measures proceedings is exceptional, since those proceedings must be swift and followed by proceedings on the merits. Menarini, aware of the parallel case by 6 August 2024, acted only after joinder had been refused, shortly before the hearing of 16 October 2024. Its legal interest is already protected in the parallel case. A de facto interest aimed at strengthening EOFLOW’s defence is not enough, and an unconditional right to intervene could be misused. The order is not open to appeal (Rule 317 RoP).

Key points for practice

Practical point: a distributor already defending parallel proceedings will not, as a rule, be allowed to intervene in interim proceedings against its supplier, all the more so if it acts late.

Provisions applied

Agreement on a Unified Patent Court: Arts. 33 and 44
Rules of Procedure: Rules 4.1, 9, 151, 206, 211, 213.1, 313, 317, 333 and 340
Case law cited: Munich Local Division, 2 January 2024, UPC_CFI_14/2023 (ORD_597730/2023)

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: 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

No case number recorded in this record.

Parties

defendantInsulet Corporation26 decisions in the corpus Follow this party
claimantEOFLOW Co., Ltd.22 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 Order
Outcome (Dhenne Avocats summary): La division centrale de Milan déclare recevable, bien que déposée sur papier, la demande d'intervention de Menarini, mais la rejette faute d'intérêt juridique propre, celui-ci étant déjà protégé dans la procédure parallèle.
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

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.