Prinoth v Xelom (CFI, UPC_CFI_703/2025, 28 September 2026)

Date	28 September 2026
Court	CFI
Division	Milan (IT) Local Division
Type of action	Infringement Action
Case number(s)	UPC_CFI_703/2025, UPC_CFI_1757/2025
Registry reference	UPC_CFI_703/2025
Parties	Prinoth S.p.A. v. Xelom s.r.l.
Language	Italian

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 · 4 November 2026

Our analysis

Summary

In an order of 28 September 2026 published on 29 October 2026 (UPC_CFI_703/2025 and UPC_CFI_1757/2025), the judge-rapporteur of the Milan Local Division answers the court expert’s request for clarification in the dispute between Prinoth and Xelom over EP 2 507 436 and EP 1 995 159, relating to snow groomers. The order of 21 July 2026 invited Xelom to hand over the functional specifications of the control unit software and the manufacturer’s documentation, and instructed a first expert to acquire the source code. Xelom handed over an undated note prepared for the occasion, stating that no documentation existed for the pump control, which Prinoth contested. The judge notes that the invitation concerned documentation from an independent third party, not a unilateral explanation by the defendant, that the manufacturer’s specifications are unavailable and that the July order was not subject to review. She therefore orders the expert to examine the software installed on Xelom’s machine, already acquired by the first expert and lodged with the Registry.

Provisions applied

Rules of Procedure: Rule 185 (court experts)

Related decisions

Milan Local Division, 16 April 2026, Prinoth v Xelom

Prepared by Dhenne Avocats from the official decision, consulted on 4 November 2026. The database is updated every week, on Friday. Only the official text is authoritative.

Going further

Lexicon: Court-appointed expert, Order to preserve evidence (UPC)

Source and translations

Official source: Unified Patent Court registry link recorded in the record
Original language: Italian 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

UPC_CFI_703/2025 official number
UPC_CFI_1757/2025 official number

Follow these proceedings

Parties

claimantPrinoth S.p.A.3 decisions in the corpus Follow this party
defendantXelom s.r.l5 decisions in the corpus Follow 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

16 April 2026 Prinoth v Xelom (CFI, 16 April 2026) Infringement Action · UPC_CFI_703/2025
Le juge rapporteur accorde à Prinoth une prorogation de trente jours, jusqu'au 27 mai 2026, du délai de dépôt de son mémoire, la duplique de Xelom ayant introduit de nombreux moyens nouveaux.
29 July 2026 Prinoth v Xelom (CFI, 29 July 2026) Infringement Action · UPC_CFI_703/2025
28 September 2026 Prinoth v Xelom (CFI, UPC_CFI_703/2025, 28 September 2026) Infringement Action · UPC_CFI_703/2025, UPC_CFI_1757/2025

What the record states

Nature of the act: Infringement Action
Outcome (Dhenne Avocats summary): La juge-rapporteure de la division locale de Milan écarte la note technique rédigée pour l’occasion par Xelom et ordonne que l’expert désigné par la Cour examine directement le logiciel de la machine saisie.
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 2 507 436 mentioned in: Dhenne Avocats analysis Follow this patent
EP 1 995 159 mentioned in: Dhenne Avocats analysis Follow this patent

Related decisions cited in the analyses

Prinoth v Xelom (CFI, 16 April 2026) cited in this record

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 2 507 436`	Mentioned in the analysis (role not qualified) Also mentioned in 2 other decision(s): Prinoth v Xelom (CFI, 27 October 2025) · PRINOTH v XELOM (CFI, 18 March 2025)	not recorded	not recorded	not recorded	Espacenet links not checked mentioned in: Dhenne Avocats analysis
`EP 1 995 159`	Mentioned in the analysis (role not qualified) Also mentioned in 2 other decision(s): Prinoth v Xelom (CFI, 27 October 2025) · PRINOTH v XELOM (CFI, 18 March 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.