Insulet v EOFLOW (CFI, 12 June 2026)

Dhenne Avocats · 10 October 2026

Our analysis

Summary

In an order of 12 June 2026 (UPC_CFI_1230/2026), the judge-rapporteur of the Milan Central Division orders EOFLOW to pay Insulet EUR 14,000 for the costs incurred in the application for leave to appeal (UPC_CFI_1167/2025) and in the appeal concerning a penalty payment (UPC_CoA_930/2025), well below the sums claimed. The order shows a concrete review of whether costs are reasonable and proportionate: the scale ceiling is only a maximum, and a purely procedural dispute warrants a limited number of hours.

Question

Which costs may the successful party recover for an application for leave to appeal and an appeal concerning a penalty payment, and are its cost records entitled to confidentiality?

Decision

The application, filed within one month, is admissible (paragraphs 8 to 12). The application for leave to appeal is ancillary to the first-instance proceedings. The EUR 10,000 awarded on 4 December 2025 covered only the earlier dispute (paragraphs 13 to 17). The value is that of the penalty at stake, EUR 150,000, giving a ceiling of EUR 38,000 per instance, which is only a maximum (paragraphs 19 to 24). As the issues were procedural and not complex, the judge allows about 25 hours at EUR 400 for the appeal, roughly EUR 10,000, and a lump sum of EUR 4,000 for the application for leave, which lacked merit (paragraphs 26 to 33). Confidentiality does not automatically extend to time records and invoices, and the costs of the confidentiality applications are not recoverable. The requests under Rules 262A and 262.1 RoP are dismissed (paragraphs 35 and 36).

Key points for practice

• Practical point: a party claiming costs must justify the need for each hour billed in light of the actual complexity of the proceedings, and the judge may award a lump sum (paragraphs 29 to 34).

Provisions applied

Agreement on a Unified Patent Court

Arts 58 and 69(1)

Rules of Procedure

Rules 150, 151, 152, 262.1, 262.2, 262A and 370.6

Case law cited

Insulet v EOFLOW, Milan Central Division, 4 December 2025, EOFLOW v Insulet, Court of Appeal, 18 March 2026, Milan Central Division, 31 July 2025 (UPC_CFI_382/2024)

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.