EOFLOW v Insulet (CoA, 9 October 2024)

Dhenne Avocats · 10 October 2026

Our analysis

Summary

In an order of 9 October 2024 (UPC_CoA_584/2024), the Court of Appeal refused EOFlow’s request to expedite its appeal against the order of 24 September 2024 of the Milan Central Division, which had declined to join Insulet’s application for provisional measures against EOFlow (EP 4 201 327) with its parallel application against Menarini before the Milan Local Division. With oral hearings listed for 15 and 16 October 2024, a ruling beforehand would have meant cutting Insulet’s time to respond substantially. The order shows that a party which is slow to come to the Court bears the cost of its own delay.

Question

Should the Court of Appeal expedite the appeal and shorten the respondent’s 15-day period for replying to the statement of grounds of appeal?

Decision

The request was admissible (paragraph 11). Rule 9.3(b) allows a time period to be shortened on a reasoned request, but EOFlow’s arguments did not outweigh Insulet’s interests and the requirements of due process (paragraphs 13 to 15). EOFlow had not explained why it waited for the decision on Menarini’s intervention before appealing. Its ten-day delay would require Insulet’s time to be cut substantially, although EOFlow itself had taken longer than the time Insulet would be left with (paragraphs 16 and 17). Given the outcome, the Court ruled without hearing Insulet (paragraph 12).

Key points for practice

• Expedition of an appeal under Rules 9.3(b) and 225(e) depends on the applicant’s own diligence: a late appeal does not justify curtailing the other side’s time to respond (paragraphs 16 and 17).

Provisions applied

Rules of Procedure

Rules 9.3(b), 224.2(b), 225(e), 235, 333 and 340.1

Case law cited

No UPC decision is cited.

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.