2025-06-25 - CD Milan - Maschio Gaspardo v. Spiridonakis Bros GP - UPC_CFI_513/2024

Before issuing a decision by default when the defendant did not even enter proceedings, factors other than the lack of opposition must be considered. Rule 355.2 RoP has a broader scope than Rule 171.2 RoP and must be interpreted in light of the front-loaded nature of UPC proceedings. This implies that, in a decision by default the Court is required to verify whether the claimant has put forward all elements in its possession to justify the legal relief sought. The claimant must therefore provide sufficient evidence to demonstrate to be entitled to the relief sought. The requirements of Art. 26 UPCA regarding the so-called “double territoriality” are satisfied when the offer and the act of putting into effect are established with respect to the territory of the contracting member states where the EP is valid. Neither the offer nor the act of putting into effect need to refer to the same contracting member state, even for “bundle patents. This is clear from the wording of Art. 26 UPCA (“therein”/ “auf diesem Gebiet”/ “sur cette territoire”)

The Milan Central Division issued a decision by default in an infringement case regarding multiple territories. The Court clarified the legal standard for a decision by default in infringement proceedings, in particular with regard to double territoriality. [To be amended]