EOFlow v Insulet (CoA, 29 January 2026)

Dhenne Avocats · 10 October 2026

Our analysis

Summary

In EOFlow Co., Ltd.’s appeal against the order of the Milan Central Division of 4 December 2025 (penalty payments imposed in favour of Insulet Corporation, EP 4 201 327), the Court of Appeal orders that the documents lodged by EOFlow as “confidential” be made available to Insulet and its representatives, and refuses to restrict Insulet’s use of the distribution information communicated in compliance with a court order.

Question

Is information communicated in compliance with an order under Art. 67 UPCA implicitly subject to a restriction on use in favour of the party providing it, and may a party lodge documents under the “HC” code without an application under Rule 262A RoP?

Decision

Granting a request under Rule 262.2 RoP does not protect against disclosure to the other party. Only a Rule 262A RoP application does (paragraph 24). There is no implicit limitation on the use of information received as a result of compliance with an order under Art. 67 UPCA and Rule 191 RoP, Rule 262A RoP applies at least mutatis mutandis, and EOFlow, which stated that it would not file such an application, should have done so (paragraphs 25 and 26). Information communicated without restriction is in any event no longer confidential (paragraph 27). Lodging documents under the “HC” code without a simultaneous Rule 262A RoP application has no legal basis (paragraph 29). The remaining requests (register, redaction of decisions, exclusion of the public) will be decided later (paragraph 30).

Key points for practice

• A party ordered to communicate information must file a Rule 262A RoP application before communicating it. Otherwise the other party may use it freely (paragraphs 26 and 27).
• The “HC” code in the case management system may not be used without a simultaneous Rule 262A RoP application (paragraph 29).

Provisions applied

Agreement on a Unified Patent Court

Arts 58 and 67

Rules of Procedure

Rules 115, 190.1, 191, 262.1(b), 262.2 and 262A

Case law cited

Kodak v Fujifilm, Court of Appeal, 14 October 2025 (UPC_CoA_699/2025), Strabag v Swarco Futurit, Court of Appeal, 1 August 2025, UPC_CoA_70/2025, Merz v Viatris, Court of Appeal, 26 January 2026 (UPC_CoA_917/2025), Insulet v A. Menarini, Court of Appeal, 9 January 2025 (UPC_CoA_769/2024, dated 9 January 2024 in the order).

Related decisions

• EOFlow v Insulet, 4 February 2026, order holding the appeal against the penalty payments inadmissible.

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.