EOFLOW v Insulet (CoA, 10 January 2025)
| Date | 10 January 2025 |
|---|---|
| Court | CoA |
| Division | Luxembourg (LU) |
| Type of action | Appeal RoP220.2 |
| Registry reference | APL_54646/2024 · ORD_68764/2024 |
| 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.
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
- An appeal against a procedural order becomes devoid of purpose once the outcome of the main proceedings makes its reversal useless to the appellant.
- An order disposing of an appeal on a procedural point does not carry a costs decision (paragraph 27).
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
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
Parties
- defendantInsulet Corporation26 decisions in the corpusFollow this party
- claimantEOFLOW Co., Ltd.22 decisions in the corpusFollow this party
Decisions in the same proceedings and documented appeals
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
EP 4 201 327mentioned in: Dhenne Avocats analysis Follow this patent
Related decisions cited in the analyses
- ICPillar v ARM (CoA, 16 September 2024) cited in this record
Patents and standards
| Publication | Role in the dispute | Family | Standard and declaration | Pool | Sources |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
EP 4 201 327Fluid 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 |
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.