EOFLOW v Insulet (CFI, ORD_26828/2025, 5 June 2025)

Date	5 June 2025
Court	CFI
Division	Milan (IT) Central Division- Section
Type of action	Application RoP262A
Registry reference	App_25415/2025 · ORD_26828/2025
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

On Insulet’s application in its claim against EOFLOW for the costs of the provisional measures proceedings on EP 4 201 327, the judge rapporteur of the Milan Central Division partly protected the fee evidence filed. The invoices are confidential because they reveal the patentee’s interest in defending its patent, but the breakdown of hours per lawyer is not, and access must extend to a natural person of the opposing party. The order, issued in UPC_CFI_477/2025 and ACT_39640/2024, grants leave to appeal.

Question

Are a party’s lawyers’ fees and expenses, filed in support of a costs application, eligible for protection under Rule 262A, and may access be confined to the opposing party’s lawyers?

Decision

Costs of proceedings are not confidential as such. They become so where they reveal financial capacity, commercial strategy or the importance of the patent to the business. Protection belongs to the company, not to the law firm. Exhibits 2 and 3 are protected, the breakdown of fees by lawyer and hour (Exhibit 4) is not.

The confidentiality club must include at least one natural person per party. Exclusion is possible only by agreement, waiver or in competition cases. The unredacted exhibits are therefore available to EOFLOW’s representatives and its designated chief executive.

Key points for practice

To protect lawyers’ invoices, a party must show what they reveal about its strategy or interest, not rely on the firm’s professional secrecy.
A club limited to the other side’s lawyers will not be accepted without the opposing party’s agreement.

Provisions applied

Agreement on a Unified Patent Court: Arts 58 and 60(1)
Rules of Procedure: Rules 262A and 287
Case law cited: FUJIFILM v Kodak, Düsseldorf Local Division, 27 March 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.

Decisions in the same proceedings

EOFLOW v Insulet (CFI, 2025-06-05), 5 June 2025

Going further

Lexicon: Confidentiality club, 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: Application RoP262A
Outcome (Dhenne Avocats summary): Les factures d'honoraires sont protégées en ce qu'elles révèlent l'intérêt du titulaire à défendre son brevet, non leur ventilation horaire. L'accès est ouvert aux représentants d'EOFLOW et à une personne physique désignée.
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

Related decisions cited in the analyses

EOFLOW v Insulet (CFI, ORD_25720/2025, 5 June 2025) cited in this record
FUJIFILM v Kodak (CFI, 27 March 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 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, 28 May 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.