Maschio Gaspardo v Spiridonakis Bros GP (CFI, 15 May 2025)

Date	15 May 2025
Court	CFI
Division	Milan (IT) Central Division- Section
Type of action	Generic Order
Case number(s)	ORD_22310/2025
Registry reference	ORD_22310/2025
Parties	Maschio Gaspardo S.p.A. v. Spiridonakis Bros GP
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.

Contact the firm

Dhenne Avocats · 10 October 2026

Our analysis

Summary

By order of 15 May 2025 (ORD_22310/2025), the judge rapporteur of the Milan Central Division ordered, in the action for infringement of EP 1 998 604 brought by Maschio Gaspardo against Spiridonakis Bros, which did not appear (UPC_CFI_513/2024), an on-site inspection of the patented device and the allegedly infringing « Bellota » tool at the claimant’s premises in Cremona, on the day of the oral hearing of 4 June 2025. The order reads the means of evidence in Art. 53 UPCA broadly.

Question

Does Art. 53(1)(f) UPCA allow the panel to leave the courtroom to examine the objects in dispute and carry out functional tests?

Decision

The judge held that Art. 53(1)(f) covers an inspection broader than the measures listed in the Rules, including examinations, experiments and the taking of physical objects, and linked the German concept of « Augenschein » to the corresponding provisions of the German Code of Civil Procedure. Since the tool had to be examined mounted on a machine of about two tonnes that could not be transported, the panel would go to the site. An on-site experiment falls under Rule 170, and where a party offers to exhibit the object and files a video of its operation (Rule 170.1(c) and (d)), dynamic and comparative tests may be ordered. The inspection forms part of the oral hearing, will be recorded, and its costs are borne by the claimant.

Key points for practice

The Division accepts an on-site judicial inspection with dynamic tests as an integral part of the oral hearing, even where the defendant has not appeared.
Practical point: the party proposing the inspection must handle its preparation and costs, and anyone wishing to attend must register with the Registry at least seven days in advance.

Provisions applied

Agreement on a Unified Patent Court: Art. 53(1)(f)
Rules of Procedure: Rules 112 and 170

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: Unitary patent, Local and central divisions (UPC).

Dhenne Avocats blog: The Transitional Period and the UPC: Coordinating Two Judicial Orders.

Publications by Matthieu Dhenne: Four Questions That Decide a UPC Market Entry, Pleading the Long Arm: What a UPC Statement of Claim Must Carry Beyond Jurisdiction (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

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

ORD_22310/2025 official number

Follow this case

Parties

claimantMaschio Gaspardo S.p.A.Follow this party
defendantSpiridonakis Bros GPFollow this party

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

Decisions in the same proceedings and documented appeals

No other decision in the corpus bears the same case number, and no appeal is documented in the corpus to date.

What the record states

Nature of the act: Generic Order
Outcome (Dhenne Avocats summary): Le juge rapporteur ordonne, au titre de l'article 53 de l'Accord, une inspection sur site du dispositif breveté et de l'outil litigieux le jour de l'audience, aux frais de la demanderesse.
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

EP 1 998 604 mentioned in: Dhenne Avocats analysis Follow this patent

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

Publication	Role in the dispute	Family	Standard and declaration	Pool	Sources
`EP 1 998 604`	Mentioned in the analysis (role not qualified) Also mentioned in 1 other decision(s): Maschio Gaspardo v Spiridonakis Bros (CFI, 25 June 2025)	not recorded	not recorded	not recorded	Espacenet links not checked 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.