2025-07-22 - CD Milan - EOFLOW v. Insulet - UPC_CFI_597/2024

Rule 355.2 RoP requires that, before issuing a decision by default against a defendant based on a procedural violation or failure to defend, the Court must verify that the case file contains sufficient, precise and consistent evidence to enable the judgment to be issued. A decision by default cannot be issued against the defendant based solely on a procedural violation or failure to defend. A patent has its own lexicon. However, patent terms should be interpreted following a straightforward reading of the claims and drawings, without looking, result-oriented, for a way out of a possible infringement. Thus, the terms of the patent must be interpreted according to their principal functional meaning, bearing in mind the language used in the patent itself. Pursuant to Article 1(3) of the decision of the Administrative Committee of 24 March 2023, the cap applies in each instance of the court proceedings, regardless of the number of parties or patents involved. Consequently, when considering patent infringement, where both an infringing manufacturer and an infringing distributor are involved in two separate but parallel proceedings concerning the same patent and the same act of infringement, a unitary approach is warranted. The cap established in Article 1(3) would be otherwise violated.

The Milan Central Division issued this decision rejecting a revocation action (by way of a decision by default) and granting the counterclaim for infringement. The Claimant of the revocation action had failed to provide a security for legal costs. The Court went into great detail regarding the legal standard for decisions by default, in particular in light of recent CoA jurisprudence regarding orders for security from a Claimant. The Court explained the rather unusual procedural constellation and weighed the parties' interests. The Court further dealt with the issue of claim construction, stating that the terms of the patent should be interpreted according to their "principal functional meaning" as well as the cap for cost reimbursement. The decision was published three times, once for the revocation action, once for the counterclaim for infringement, once for the cost proceedings.