Maschio Gaspardo v Spiridonakis Bros (CFI, 25 June 2025)

Dhenne Avocats · 10 October 2026

Our analysis

Summary

By decision by default of 8 July 2025, the Milan Central Division (Postiglione, Klein, Ledeboer) held that the “Bellota” tool marketed by the Greek company Spiridonakis Bros infringes claims 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 9 and 10 of EP 1 998 604, owned by Maschio Gaspardo, and granted an injunction for Italy, Germany, France, Romania and Bulgaria, an information order and costs. The decision matters beyond the default itself: it clarifies the court’s role under Rule 355.2, declines to examine validity of its own motion and takes a flexible view of double territoriality for indirect infringement (Art. 26 UPCA).

Facts and procedure

Maschio Gaspardo brought the action on 5 September 2024 (UPC_CFI_513/2024) against the offer and sale of reversible tools for agricultural subsoilers, evidenced by two test purchases shipped from Greece to Bulgaria in July and August 2024. The statement of claim was served on 2 January 2025 through the Greek authorities. The defendant did not appear. The oral hearing was preceded by a site visit by the panel. Several requests were withdrawn during the proceedings (interim damages, publication, some Art. 64(2) measures), what remained was an injunction with penalty, a declaration of infringement, an information order and costs.

The applicable law

Rule 355.2 allows a decision by default where the facts put forward by the claimant justify the remedy sought. The division distinguished it from Rule 171.2, which concerns only the non-contestation of a specific fact: absent a defence, non-contestation is general, so the claimant must put forward all elements in its possession, including those required by Rules 12 and 13 (patent documents, the skilled person). Direct and indirect infringing acts fall under Arts 25 and 26 UPCA.

Question

May a decision by default rest on non-appearance alone, must the court assess the validity of the patent, and does indirect infringement require the offer and the putting into effect to occur in the same Contracting Member State?

Decision

The division checked that service was proper and then examined the merits of the claim itself. It construed the “fixing means” of claim 1 as covering the plate-like body and the apertured plates acting as quick-release connectors, pins and bolts not necessarily forming part of them. It did not examine validity, which it does not raise of its own motion even in default, noting the presumption of validity of granted patents (CJEU, C-44/21).

The offer, sale and distribution in Bulgaria were proven. They give rise to a rebuttable presumption that the other acts under Art. 25(a) were committed. Even if pins and bolts were part of the claim, direct infringement would still be made out (the “extended workbench” theory), since those parts are sold on the defendant’s website and the tool cannot work without them. In the alternative, indirect infringement under Art. 26 is established. As to double territoriality, the offer and the putting into effect need not concern the same Contracting Member State, even for a classic European patent.

The injunction runs from service, with a penalty of EUR 500 per set of tools sold. Information on origin, distribution channels, quantities and prices is due within fifteen days, with a penalty of EUR 100 per day, and is to be treated as strictly confidential. Costs of EUR 25,000 plus VAT and the court fees were awarded against the defendant, with leave to appeal on costs (Rule 157). The default may be challenged within one month of service (Rule 356).

Key points for practice

• Rule 355.2 does not relieve the claimant of proof: the court checks that the facts alleged, supported by the evidence, justify each remedy sought.
• Validity is not examined of the court’s own motion, even in default. A defaulting defendant thus forgoes the chance to challenge the patent before the same panel.
• Double territoriality under Art. 26 is read broadly: an offer in one Contracting Member State and delivery in another suffice.
• Practical point: against a distributor based in another State and selling online, documented test purchases and proper service are enough to obtain a multi-state injunction, even without appearance.

Provisions applied

Agreement on a Unified Patent Court

Arts 25, 26 and 33(1), Art. 63, Art. 64(2)(a), Art. 67

Rules of Procedure

Rules 12, 13, 151, 152, 157, 171.2, 190, 191, 221, 355 and 356

Case law cited

SES-imagotag v Hanshow, 13 May 2024, Abbott Diabetes Care v Sibio, 14 February 2025, EOFlow v Insulet, Court of Appeal, UPC_CoA_768/2024, 10x Genomics v NanoString, 5 December 2023, Hand Held Products v Scandit, 27 August 2024, Düsseldorf Local Division, 10 October 2024, UPC_CFI_363/2023, Düsseldorf Local Division, 31 October 2024, ACT_58084/2023, Munich Local Division, 15 November 2024, UPC_CFI_15/2023, air up v Guangzhou Aiyun, Munich Local Division, 9 January 2025, CJEU, 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.