Pirelli Tyre v Sichuan Yuanxing Rubber (CFI, 14 July 2025)

Date	14 July 2025
Court	CFI
Division	Milan (IT) Local Division
Type of action	Generic application
Registry reference	App_26266/2025 · ORD_26742/2025
Parties	SICHUAN YUANXING RUBBER CO., LTD.

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 14 July 2025 (UPC_CFI_770/2024, App_26266/2025), the Milan Local Division (Judges Perrotti, Zana and Knijff) dismissed Sichuan Yuanxing Rubber’s request for re-establishment of rights, made in order to challenge out of time the ex parte seizure of tyres at the EICMA trade fair obtained by Pirelli Tyre under EP 3 519 207. Service refused at the stand counts as valid service.

Question

Can a defendant that failed to request review of a seizure order within 30 days have its rights re-established where its staff refused to accept the documents?

Decision

No. The request, filed under Rules 9 and 300, is treated as a Rule 320 request, in line with the Court of Appeal’s order of 6 June 2025. The seizure order of 5 November 2024 authorised alternative service at the stand. Under Art. 82(3) UPCA and Rule 354.1, service was governed by Italian law, and Art. 138 of the Italian Code of Civil Procedure treats a refusal to accept a document as service in hand. Service was therefore valid on 6 November 2024, and the documents were unavailable because Sichuan’s staff refused them, not because of any failing by Pirelli. Costs are reserved to the decision on the merits. No appeal lies against the order (Rule 320.7).

Key points for practice

Practical point: refusing documents served at a trade fair stand starts the time limit for requesting review of the measure, that refusal cannot later ground re-establishment of rights.

Provisions applied

Agreement on a Unified Patent Court: Arts 62 and 82(3)
Rules of Procedure: Rules 9, 197.3, 212.3, 300(a), 320 and 354.1
Italian Code of Civil Procedure: Art. 138
Case law cited: Court of Appeal, order of 6 June 2025 (UPC_CoA_618/2024)

Related decisions

Pirelli Tyre v SICHUAN YUANXING RUBBER, 5 November 2024, seizure order granted without hearing the defendant.

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: Written procedure (UPC), Court fees and costs (UPC).

Source and translations

Official source: Unified Patent Court registry link recorded in the record
Original language: not recorded
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

No case number recorded in this record.

Parties

claimantLTD5 decisions in the corpus Follow this party
claimantSICHUAN YUANXING RUBBER CO2 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

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 application
Outcome (Dhenne Avocats summary): La demande de restitutio in integrum de Sichuan Yuanxing Rubber est rejetée : le refus de ses préposés de recevoir les actes sur le stand vaut signification régulière selon le droit italien, applicable par renvoi de l'article 82, paragraphe 3, de l'Accord.
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 3 519 207 mentioned in: Dhenne Avocats analysis Follow this patent

Related decisions cited in the analyses

Pirelli Tyre v SICHUAN YUANXING RUBBER (CFI, 5 November 2024) 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 3 519 207`	Mentioned in the analysis (role not qualified) Also mentioned in 3 other decision(s): PIRELLI TYRE v Sichuan Yuanxing Rubber (CFI, UPC_CFI_770/2024, 26 May · Pirelli Tyre v SICHUAN YUANXING RUBBER (CFI, 5 November 2024) · PIRELLI TYRE v Sichuan Yuanxing Rubber (CFI, 16 July 2026)	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.