Morello Forni Italia v Gastroteam Abbe (CFI, 19 November 2025)

Dhenne Avocats · 10 October 2026

Our analysis

Summary

In a decision of 19 November 2025, given in Italian, the Milan Local Division held by default that Gastroteam Abbe and the sole trader Marciuliano Attrezzature infringe EP 3 691 454, Morello Forni’s unitary patent for a method and machine for shaping pizza dough. It granted an injunction across the eighteen Contracting Member States, recall and destruction of the « Pizza Former » machines, disclosure of information, publication and interim awards of damages.

The decision shows that a defendant’s default does not relieve the claimant of proving the facts: the division examined each claim and rejected those whose reproduction was not shown.

Facts and procedure

The patent, granted on 17 July 2024 and not opposed, has had unitary effect since 2 September 2024. The action was brought on 13 December 2024 by the proprietor and its licensee. Service was effected by certified e-mail (PEC) on the Italian defendant and by post, under Art. 18 of Regulation (EU) 2020/1784, on the Swedish company. Neither defendant appointed a representative or filed a defence. The claimants requested a decision by default on 8 July 2025.

The applicable law

A decision by default falls under Rule 355 and Art. 37 of the Statute. Rule 171.2 on uncontested facts does not apply to a defaulting defendant: Rule 355.2 and Art. 54 UPCA require that the facts put forward justify the remedy sought. The remedies rest on Art. 25, 63, 64, 67, 68 and 80 UPCA and on Rules 118 and 354.

Question

Does the default of properly served defendants allow the court to find infringement and grant all the remedies sought, and to what extent must the facts alleged be established?

Decision

Service was held valid on both defendants, even without the annexes (section 4). Default is neutral: it does not halt the proceedings but is no admission, so the claimant must establish its allegations (sections 1 to 3 and 6). Validity was not examined, there being no counterclaim, and a European patent enjoys a presumption of validity (section 7, citing the CJEU’s Phoenix Contact judgment).

After a feature-by-feature comparison, literal reproduction was found for claims 1 to 6, 8 to 10 and 12 to 18, it was rejected for claims 7 and 11, the use of PTFE and silicone not being proven (section 8). Gastroteam makes, offers and markets the machine. Marciuliano offers and markets it in Italy (section 9).

The order grants an injunction in eighteen States, with a penalty of EUR 11,000 per machine, recall and destruction within thirty days, disclosure of information, a banner on Gastroteam’s websites for one month, penalties of EUR 5,000 per day of delay, and interim awards of EUR 46,000 and EUR 10,000. The defendants bear the costs, up to EUR 56,000, and the value of the case is set at EUR 500,000. Damages will be determined in separate proceedings.

Key points for practice

• A defaulting defendant is not deemed to admit the facts: the claimant must prove them, claim by claim (section 6).
• Unitary effect supports an injunction covering all Contracting Member States, including against the defendant whose acts were found only in Italy (section 10).
• The amount of the penalty may be calibrated on the price of the infringing product, here about EUR 5,500 (section 10).
• Practical point: service by PEC on an Italian business and by post under Regulation 2020/1784 was held sufficient (section 4).

Provisions applied

Agreement on a Unified Patent Court

Art. 25, 26, 54, 63, 64, 67, 68, 69, 73, 80 and 82

Statute of the Court

Art. 37

Rules of Procedure

Rules 118, 119, 125, 150 to 152, 171.2, 271, 277, 354 and 355

Directive 2004/48/EC

Art. 3

Case law cited

Sanofi-Aventis Deutschland v Amgen, Court of Appeal, 13 October 2023, Paris Central Division, 16 September 2024 (UPC_CFI_412/2023), Milan Central Division, 8 July 2025 (UPC_CFI_513/2024), Paris Local Division, 30 January 2024 (UPC_CFI_230/2023), Milan Local Division, 4 November 2024 (UPC_CFI_241/2023), CJEU, Phoenix Contact, C-44/21

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.