Opens in a new tab

Insulet v A. Menarini Diagnostics (CFI, 23 December 2024)

Date23 December 2024
CourtCFI
DivisionMilan (IT) Central Division- Section
Type of actionGeneric application
Registry referenceApp_58027/2024 · ORD_59988/2024
PartiesInsulet 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 an order of 23 December 2024 (UPC_CFI_380/2024, ORD_59988/2024), the judge-rapporteur of the Milan Central Division (Judge Postiglione) ordered A. Menarini Diagnostics to pay Insulet EUR 1,764 for the costs of opposing its application to intervene, refused on 1 October 2024, in the provisional measures proceedings brought by Insulet against EOFLOW on the basis of EP 4 201 327. The order accepts that a costs decision may be made against a refused intervener without awaiting a decision on the merits.

Question

Can an applicant whose application to intervene was refused be ordered, under Rule 151, to bear the costs of the party that opposed it?

Decision

Yes. The intervention sub-proceeding is judicial in nature, so the applicant for intervention is a party within Rule 151 and Art. 69 UPCA applies. That Article does not confine costs to decisions on the merits and prevails over the Rules of Procedure. The decision on intervention also has a substantive element. It covers all reasonable and proportionate costs, not only those of a necessary defence. An invoice is not required where the amounts and work are clear. The extract filed, with a declaration of compliance, was found plausible and proportionate.

Key points for practice

Provisions applied

Agreement on a Unified Patent Court
Art. 41(3), Art. 42, Art. 52(1) and Art. 69
Rules of Procedure
Rules 150, 151, 152, 156.3, 157, 221, 313, 314, 315.4, 316.3 and 317
Case law cited
Paris Local Division, Seoul Viosys v Photon Wave, 6 May 2024 (UPC_CFI_440/2023)

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: 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

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
Generic application
Outcome (Dhenne Avocats summary)
A. Menarini Diagnostics, dont l'intervention a été rejetée, doit payer à Insulet 1 764 euros au titre des frais de l'incident d'intervention.
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

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.