Insulet v Eoflow (CFI, 30 December 2024)

Date	30 December 2024
Court	CFI
Division	Milan (IT) Local Division
Type of action	Generic application
Registry reference	App_58035/2024 · ORD_60558/2024
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.

Contact the firm

Dhenne Avocats · 10 October 2026

Our analysis

Summary

By an order of 30 December 2024 (UPC_CFI_400/2024, ORD_60558/2024), the judge-rapporteur of the Milan Local Division (Judge Zana) dismissed Insulet’s application for a costs decision against Eoflow, whose application to intervene in support of A. Menarini Diagnostics, the defendant to an application for provisional measures based on EP 4 201 327, had been refused on 1 October 2024. Insulet claimed EUR 15,748 for its comments on the intervention. The order makes the fixing of costs conditional on a prior decision on the principle of costs, which was lacking here.

Question

Can a party that successfully opposed an intervention obtain directly, under Rules 150 et seq., an order that the refused intervener bear its costs?

Decision

Not as matters stood. A refused intervener does not become a party (Rule 315.4) and cannot be an « unsuccessful party ». Treating the refusal order as a decision on the merits would conflict with Art. 73 UPCA (section 2.2). An application for a costs decision presupposes a decision on the principle of costs (Rule 156(e)), the judge-rapporteur only fixes the amount. The order of 1 October 2024 contained none and Insulet had not asked for one. It may reapply once such a decision exists (section 2.3).

Key points for practice

The Milan Local Division departs from the order of 23 December 2024 of the Milan Central Division, which had ordered the refused intervener to pay costs.
Practical point: a party opposing an intervention should ask, in its comments, for a decision on the principle of costs.

Provisions applied

Agreement on a Unified Patent Court: Art. 69 and Art. 73
Rules of Procedure: Rules 150, 151, 156, 157, 313, 314, 315.4 and 317
Case law cited: Munich Local Division, two orders of 2 October 2024 (ORD_46842/2024, UPC_CFI_487/2023), Insulet v A. Menarini Diagnostics, Milan Central Division, 23 December 2024 (ORD_59988/2024)

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: 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

claimantInsulet Corporation26 decisions in the corpus Follow this party

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): La demande de fixation des frais contre l'intervenant éconduit est rejetée, faute de décision de principe préalable sur les frais. Elle pourra être réintroduite.
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 4 201 327 mentioned in: Dhenne Avocats analysis Follow this patent

Related decisions cited in the analyses

Insulet v A. Menarini Diagnostics (CFI, 23 December 2024) cited in this record

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

Publication	Role in the dispute	Family	Standard and declaration	Pool	Sources
`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 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

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.