EOFLOW v Insulet (CFI, 11 April 2025)

Dhenne Avocats · 10 October 2026

Our analysis

Summary

By order of 11 April 2025 (UPC_CFI_597/2024), the Milan Central Division rules on three issues in EOFLOW’s revocation action against Insulet’s EP 4201327, in which Insulet has counterclaimed for infringement. It refuses further written submissions under Rule 36, holds a late prior art document (US 6,656,159) inadmissible and orders EOFLOW to provide security for costs of EUR 500,000. The order shows how strictly the UPC timetable applies to invalidity attacks and the financial analysis on which security is ordered.

Question

May a revocation claimant rely on new prior art after its statement for revocation, and must it provide security for costs where its financial position has deteriorated?

Decision

The parties having fully argued their positions, further submissions are unnecessary (paragraph 10). US ’159 could have been filed earlier (paragraph 32), it was not in the statement for revocation and did not rebut any argument of the other side, which distinguishes NJOY v VMR Products (paragraphs 33 to 35), Rule 263 concerns amendment of claims, not new evidence on the same claim (paragraph 36). On security, Rule 158 also applies to a revocation claimant, whose role overlaps with that of a defendant in cross-actions (paragraphs 43 to 46). The test is whether there is a legitimate and real concern that costs may not be recoverable (paragraph 49), EOFLOW’s financial indicators are negative and unrebutted (paragraphs 50 to 53). Security is set at 50% of the combined ceilings on recoverable costs in both actions (paragraph 59), to be provided within three weeks (paragraph 60).

Key points for practice

• All prior art must be in the statement for revocation. A new document is admitted only in rebuttal of the other side’s case (paragraphs 32 to 36).
• A party facing specific financial indicators in a security application must rebut them with documents (paragraph 53).

Provisions applied

Agreement on a Unified Patent Court

Arts 69(4) and 76

Rules of Procedure

Rules 36, 158.1, 263 and 355

Case law cited

Court of Appeal, 17 September 2024, Audi v NST (UPC_CoA_217/2024), Court of Appeal, 29 November 2024, Aarke v SodaStream (UPC_CoA_548/2024), 21 January 2025, NJOY v VMR Products (UPC_CFI_311/2023), Mannheim Local Division, 30 April 2024 (UPC_CFI_218/2023).

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.