Opens in a new tab

Insulet v A. Menarini Diagnostics (CFI, 1 October 2024)

Date1 October 2024
CourtCFI
DivisionMilan (IT) Local Division
Type of actionApplication for provisional measures
Case number(s)UPC_CFI_400/2024
Registry referenceACT_40442/2024 · ORD_51903/2024 · UPC_CFI_400/2024
PartiesInsulet Corporation v. A. Menarini Diagnostics s.r.l.

Official decision (PDF) · UPC registry entry

Case timeline

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 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

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
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

  • UPC_CFI_400/2024 official number

Follow this case

Parties

Exact name as it appears in the record, group affiliation only where sourced and dated.

Decisions in the same proceedings and documented appeals

  1. 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.

  2. 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.

  3. 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

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.