Insulet v EOFLOW (CFI, 15 October 2025)

Dhenne Avocats · 10 October 2026

Our analysis

Summary

In a decision of 15 October 2025, the judge-rapporteur of the Milan Central Division assessed the recoverable costs payable by EOFLOW to Insulet following the decision on the merits of 22 July 2025 (proceedings UPC_CFI_773/2025 and UPC_CFI_774/2025, patent EP 4 201 327). The interim award of EUR 200,000 stands and EOFLOW must pay a further EUR 113,773.40 within three weeks. The decision is useful for its method: item by item exclusions, then an overall proportionality reduction for the last phase of the proceedings.

Question

Which costs incurred by the successful party, beyond the interim award already made, are reasonable and proportionate under Rules 150 et seq.?

Decision

The application, filed within one month of the decision, was admissible and remained below the ceilings in the scale. Excluded were redacted invoice entries, which could not be checked (Rule 156), costs of rescheduling a hearing because of a lawyer’s unavailability, an opinion on Italian law that had no bearing on the dispute, and all enforcement costs, which postdate the decision and fall to the national courts (Article 82(3) UPCA). For costs incurred from 2 May 2025, the judge applied a 30% reduction, as the later proceedings were largely repetitive and the hearing concerned an infringement that was barely disputed. EUR 156,662 was reduced to EUR 109,663.40. The accepted total of EUR 313,773.40, less the interim award, leaves EUR 113,773.40 to pay.

Key points for practice

• Invoices filed in support of a costs application must allow the judge to check every item. Redacted entries are disregarded.
• An overall proportionality reduction may apply to the costs of a phase of the proceedings that became repetitive, even below the ceilings.

Provisions applied

Agreement on a Unified Patent Court

Art. 69(1) and Art. 82(3)

Rules of Procedure

Rules 150, 151, 152, 156, 157 and 221

Administrative Committee

Scale of ceilings for recoverable costs

Case law cited

Düsseldorf Local Division, UPC_CFI_16/2024, MSG Maschinenbau v EJP Maschinenbau, Munich Local Division, 19 March 2025 (UPC_CFI_696/2024), Seoul Viosys v expert, Düsseldorf Local Division (UPC_CFI_363/2023), Court of Appeal, 30 April 2025 (UPC_CoA_768/2024)

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.