Insulet v A. Menarini Diagnostics (CFI, 1 October 2024)
| Date | 1 October 2024 |
|---|---|
| Court | CFI |
| Division | Milan (IT) Local Division |
| Type of action | Application for provisional measures |
| Case number(s) | UPC_CFI_400/2024 |
| Registry reference | ACT_40442/2024 · ORD_51903/2024 · UPC_CFI_400/2024 |
| Parties | Insulet Corporation v. A. Menarini Diagnostics s.r.l. |
Official decision (PDF) · UPC registry entry
Case timeline
- 4 September 2024 : A. Menarini Diagnostics v Insulet (CFI, 4 September 2024) App_40442/2024 · ORD_45723/2024 · UPC_CFI_400/2024
- 1 October 2024 : A. Menarini Diagnostics v Insulet (CFI, 1 October 2024) App_40442/2024 · ORD_51903/2024 · UPC_CFI_400/2024
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 1 October 2024 (UPC_CFI_400/2024), the Milan Local Division dismissed the application of EOFlow, the manufacturer of the EOPatch insulin patch pump, to intervene in support of its exclusive distributor A. Menarini Diagnostics in the provisional measures proceedings brought by Insulet on EP 4 201 327. Without ruling out intervention in summary proceedings as a matter of principle, the division gave priority to the applicant’s interest in a speedy decision. The order matters for manufacturers whose distributors alone are sued in summary proceedings.
Question
May a third party that manufactures the allegedly infringing product intervene under Rule 313 RoP in provisional measures proceedings brought against its distributor?
Decision
Rule 313 RoP requires a direct and present legal interest and support for a party’s claims. The reference to the written procedure suggests proceedings on the merits, but intervention is allowed « at any stage of the proceedings » (paragraphs 2.3 and 2.4). Here the balance of interests led to dismissal (paragraph 3): the two-step procedure under Rule 313 is incompatible with the hearing set for 15 October 2024 and would excessively slow the summary proceedings, EOFlow, defendant in parallel proceedings before the Milan Central Division on the same patent, had known of the case since July and applied only thirty days before the hearing, its arguments already being before the UPC in the other case, finally, the provisional decision has no res judicata effect and affects the manufacturer only indirectly, in economic terms.
Key points for practice
- Practical point: a manufacturer wishing to support its distributor in summary proceedings must apply to intervene promptly, a late application, while it is already litigating against the patentee elsewhere, yields to the need for speed.
Provisions applied
- Rules of Procedure
- Preamble and Rules 206, 313 and 314
- Case law cited
- Düsseldorf Local Division, 26 June 2024, UPC_CFI_457/2023, Vienna Local Division, 30 July 2024, UPC_CFI_33/2024.
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.
Decisions in the same proceedings
Going further
Lexicon: Application for a preliminary injunction, Order to preserve evidence (UPC), Supplementary protection certificate (SPC), Biosimilar medicinal product.
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.
Parties
- claimantInsulet Corporation26 decisions in the corpusFollow this party
- defendantA. Menarini Diagnostics s.r.l9 decisions in the corpusFollow this party
Decisions in the same proceedings and documented appeals
- 4 September 2024 A. Menarini Diagnostics v Insulet (CFI, 4 September 2024) Procedural Order · UPC_CFI_400/2024
La division protège les données commerciales et, par prudence, les descriptions techniques de Menarini, ouvre l'accès aux représentants, experts, au responsable propriété intellectuelle d'Insulet et, à effet différé, à un avocat américain, et autorise l'appel.
- 1 October 2024 A. Menarini Diagnostics v Insulet (CFI, 1 October 2024) Procedural Order · UPC_CFI_400/2024
La division locale de Milan rejette la demande d'intervention d'EOFLOW au soutien de son distributeur Menarini, l'exigence de célérité du référé et la protection de son intérêt dans la procédure parallèle l'emportant.
- 1 October 2024 Insulet v A. Menarini Diagnostics (CFI, 1 October 2024) Application for provisional measures · UPC_CFI_400/2024
What the record states
- Nature of the act
- Application for provisional measures
- Outcome (Dhenne Avocats summary)
- L'intervention du fabricant EOFlow dans la procédure de mesures provisoires visant son distributeur est déclarée irrecevable, l'intérêt du demandeur à une décision rapide prévalant.
- 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
- Insulet v A. Menarini Diagnostics (CFI, 22 November 2024) cited in this record
- A. Menarini Diagnostics v Insulet (CFI, 1 October 2024) cited in this record
- A. Menarini Diagnostics v Insulet (CFI, 4 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.