Insulet v A. Menarini Diagnostics (CoA, APL_64383/2024, 9 January 2025)
| Date | 9 January 2025 |
|---|---|
| Court | CoA |
| Division | Luxembourg (LU) |
| Type of action | Application RoP262A |
| Case number(s) | UPC_CoA_769/2024 |
| Registry reference | APL_64383/2024 · App_68619/2024 · App_68621/2024 · UPC_CoA_769/2024 |
| Parties | Insulet Corporation v. A. Menarini Diagnostics s.r.l |
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 order of 9 January 2025 (UPC_CoA_769/2024), the judge-rapporteur of the Court of Appeal held that A. Menarini Diagnostics’ confidentiality request in Insulet’s appeal against the Milan Local Division’s refusal of provisional measures (EP 4 201 327) was superfluous. The first-instance order of 4 September 2024, which was not appealed, provided that the confidentiality obligation would survive the end of the proceedings. It therefore applies on appeal. Parties need not seek again on appeal protection already granted at first instance.
Question
Must a party obtain a fresh Rule 262A order on appeal where the same information is already protected by a first-instance order?
Decision
No. An unchallenged first-instance order restricting access to specified persons continues to apply after the end of the proceedings, and so on appeal (paragraph 9, citing Curio Bioscience v 10x Genomics), the Milan order said so expressly (paragraph 10). As the information and the persons with access are the same (paragraph 11), the request is superfluous and Insulet’s representatives need not be invited to comment under Rule 262A.4 (paragraphs 8 and 12). The requests to exclude the public from the hearing (Rule 115) and to restrict third-party access (Rule 262.2) will be dealt with if and when needed (paragraph 13). The Registry is to grant access to the partially redacted Statement of Response only to the persons named in the order of 4 September 2024.
Key points for practice
- A first-instance confidentiality order drafted to survive the proceedings covers the appeal without a fresh application, provided the information and the circle of persons remain the same.
Provisions applied
- Rules of Procedure
- Rules 115, 262.1, 262.2, 262A and 354.3
- Case law cited
- Curio Bioscience v 10x Genomics, Court of Appeal, 28 March 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: UPC Court of Appeal, Confidentiality club, Supplementary protection certificate (SPC), Biosimilar medicinal product.
Dhenne Avocats blog: UPC Appeals: What the Numbers Show, 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
What the record states
- Nature of the act
- Application RoP262A
- Outcome (Dhenne Avocats summary)
- Le juge rapporteur écarte, sans l’examiner au fond, la demande de confidentialité de Menarini, l’ordonnance de première instance non contestée continuant de s’appliquer en appel.
- Appeal
- Decision of the Court of Appeal.
- Instance
- Court of Appeal decision.
Patents mentioned
EP 4 201 327mentioned in: Dhenne Avocats analysis Follow this patent
Related decisions cited in the analyses
- Curio Bioscience v 10x Genomics (CoA, 28 March 2024) cited in this record
- EOFlow v Insulet (CoA, 26 February 2026) cites this decision
- EOFlow v Insulet (CoA, 29 January 2026) cites this decision
- Visibly v Easee (CoA, 23 July 2025) 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.