Insulet v A. Menarini Diagnostics (CFI, 23 December 2024)
| Date | 23 December 2024 |
|---|---|
| Court | CFI |
| Division | Milan (IT) Central Division- Section |
| Type of action | Generic application |
| Registry reference | App_58027/2024 · ORD_59988/2024 |
| Parties | 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 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
- The Milan Local Division reached the opposite result on 30 December 2024 in the parallel case, as the order refusing intervention contained no decision on the principle of costs.
- Practical point: a party opposing an intervention may quantify its costs with an extract of the work done and a declaration of compliance, without an invoice.
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
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
- claimantInsulet Corporation26 decisions in the corpusFollow this party
Decisions in the same proceedings and documented appeals
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
EP 4 201 327mentioned in: Dhenne Avocats analysis Follow this patent
Related decisions cited in the analyses
- Seoul Viosys v Photon Wave (CFI, 6 May 2024) cited in this record
- AsusTek Computer v Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson (CFI, 4 April 2025) cites this decision
- EOFLOW v Insulet (CFI, 15 February 2025) cites this decision
- Insulet v Eoflow (CFI, 30 December 2024) cites this decision
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.