Opens in a new tab

EOFLOW v Insulet (CoA, 10 January 2025)

Date10 January 2025
CourtCoA
DivisionLuxembourg (LU)
Type of actionAppeal RoP220.2
Registry referenceAPL_54646/2024 · ORD_68764/2024
PartiesEOFLOW 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 9 January 2025 (UPC_CoA_584/2024), the Court of Appeal disposed of EOFlow’s appeal as devoid of purpose. The appeal challenged the Milan Central Division’s order of 24 September 2024 refusing 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. As both applications were rejected on 22 November 2024, EOFlow could gain nothing from success on appeal. The order confirms that Rule 360 applies to appeals and that a procedural order does not give rise to a costs decision.

Question

Does an appeal against a refusal to join proceedings retain any purpose once the applications for provisional measures have been rejected at first instance?

Decision

Rule 360 also covers appeals. Absent a legal interest in the appeal, there is no need to adjudicate (paragraphs 18 and 19). The appeal must be capable of procuring an advantage for the appellant (paragraph 21). The refusal to join did not harm EOFlow, since both applications failed (paragraph 22), any procedural error could be corrected on appeal against the final decision, and the arguments based on suspensive effect and the balancing of interests do not assist (paragraphs 23 to 25). Joinder is assessed case by case, which creates no present interest (paragraph 26). Insulet’s costs request is refused, as the order does not conclude an action (paragraph 27).

Key points for practice

Provisions applied

Agreement on a Unified Patent Court
Art. 69(1)
Rules of Procedure
Rules 211.3, 223, 333, 340.1 and 360
Case law cited
ICPillar v SVF Holdco, Court of Appeal, 16 September 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.


Going further

Lexicon: UPC Court of Appeal, Supplementary protection certificate (SPC), Biosimilar medicinal product, Launch at risk.

Dhenne Avocats blog: UPC Appeals: What the Numbers Show, 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

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
Appeal RoP220.2
Outcome (Dhenne Avocats summary)
La cour d’appel clôt l’appel d’EOFlow contre le refus de jonction, devenu sans objet après le rejet des deux demandes de mesures provisoires, et rejette la demande de frais d’Insulet.
Appeal
Decision of the Court of Appeal.
Instance
Court of Appeal decision.

Patents mentioned

Related decisions cited in the analyses

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

PublicationRole in the disputeFamilyStandard and declarationPoolSources
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 recordednot recordednot recordedEspacenet · 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.

Follow

Weekly summary, on Fridays.