Insulet v EOFLOW (CFI, 4 December 2025)
| Date | 4 December 2025 |
|---|---|
| Court | CFI |
| Division | Milan (IT) Central Division- Section |
| Type of action | Application RoP262A |
| Case number(s) | UPC_CFI_1167/2025 |
| Registry reference | UPC_CFI_1167/2025 |
| Parties | Insulet Corporation v. EOFLOW Co., Ltd. |
| Language | English |
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 · 19 October 2026
Our analysis
Summary
The Milan Central Division ordered EOFLOW to pay a penalty of EUR 150,000 for violating the preliminary injunction granted by the Court of Appeal on 30 April 2025, on the basis of evidence that EOFLOW had exported 11,520 insulin pump devices to Italy and Sweden between May and July 2025 in breach of that injunction, and ordered EOFLOW to reimburse EUR 10,000 in legal costs. The court dismissed the parties’ confidentiality applications under Rules 262.2 and 262A RoP, and declined to apply retroactively the stricter penalty terms specified by the Milan Central Division in July 2025 to conduct predating that specification, reasoning that a party cannot be forced to comply with terms only specified in detail at a later date.
Why it matters
The order shows how the UPC enforces its own provisional measures: penalty payments are assessed against the terms of the injunction as they stood at the time of the conduct, documentary evidence such as air waybills naming the enjoined party as shipper can establish the violation, and attempts to attribute the shipments to a distributor were rejected as, in the court’s words, “artificial and not evidence-based”. The dismissal of the confidentiality requests is equally instructive: information already discussed in the publicly available interim conference and oral hearing no longer meets the requirement that confidentiality be effectively ensured, so protection must be sought before the information enters the public record. The penalty was set with express reference to the deliberate continuation of the conduct in defiance of a binding order.
Practical point
An enjoined party that continues supplying through a distributor remains exposed where transport documents identify it as shipper, and confidentiality under Rule 262A must be requested before the material is aired in open proceedings.
Summary prepared by Dhenne Avocats. Only the official text of the decision is authoritative.
Going further
Lexicon: Confidentiality club, Application for a preliminary injunction, Order to preserve evidence (UPC), Supplementary protection certificate (SPC).
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
- English from the language of proceedings
- 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
- defendantEOFLOW Co., Ltd.22 decisions in the corpusFollow this party
Decisions in the same proceedings and documented appeals
- 4 December 2025 Insulet v EOFLOW (CFI, 4 December 2025) Application RoP262A · UPC_CFI_1167/2025
- 4 February 2026 EOFlow v Insulet (CoA, 4 February 2026) Appeal RoP220.2 · appeal, first-instance number cited in the decision
L’appel contre l’ordonnance prononçant une astreinte et fixant les frais est irrecevable faute d’autorisation expresse de la division de première instance. La demande d’effet suspensif est rejetée.
- 18 March 2026 EOFLOW v Insulet (CoA, 18 March 2026) Appeal RoP220.2 · appeal, first-instance number cited in the decision
La cour d'appel rejette l'appel d'EOFlow : les informations communiquées à Insulet sans ordonnance au titre de la règle 262A ne sont plus des secrets d'affaires ni des informations confidentielles, aucune limitation implicite d'usage n'existant.
What the record states
- Nature of the act
- Application RoP262A
- Outcome (Dhenne Avocats summary)
- The Milan Central Division ordered EOFLOW to pay a penalty of EUR 150,000 for violating the preliminary injunction granted by the Court of Appeal on 30 April 2025, on the basis of evidence that EOFLOW had exported 11,520 insulin pump devices to Italy and Sweden between May and July 2025 in breach of that injunction, and ordered EOFLOW to reimburse EUR 10,000 in legal costs. The court dismissed the parties' confidentiality applications under Rules 262.2 and 262A RoP, and declined to apply retroactively the stricter penalty terms specified by the Milan Central Division in July 2025 to conduct predating that specification, reasoning that a party cannot be forced to comply with terms only specified in detail at a later date.
- Appeal
- An appeal is documented in the corpus (see above).
- Instance
- First-instance decision, whether it has become final is not recorded.
Related decisions cited in the analyses
- Insulet v EOFLOW (CFI, 12 June 2026) cites this decision
- Occlutech v Lepu Medical (Europe) Cooperatief (CFI, 20 May 2026) cites this decision
- EOFlow v Insulet (CoA, 26 February 2026) cites this decision
- EOFlow v Insulet (CoA, 4 February 2026) cites this decision
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.