2026-01-15 - CD Milan - Fisher & Paykel Healthcare v. Flexicare (Group) - UPC_CFI_480/2025
- Aktenzeichen:
- UPC_CFI_480/2025
- Datum:
- Spruchkörper:
- Court of First Instance - Milan (IT) Central Division- Section
- Art:
- Order
- Parteien:
- Fisher & Paykel Healthcare Limited v. Flexicare (Group) Limited
Kernaussage: The Milan Central Division rejected the patentee's application to introduce subsequent auxiliary requests (2A-13A) into a revocation proceeding.
2026-01-15 - CD Milan - Fisher & Paykel Healthcare
v.
Flexicare (Group) - UPC_CFI_480/2025
routine
The Milan Central Division rejected the patentee's application to introduce subsequent auxiliary requests (2A-13A) into a revocation proceeding. The court confirmed that Rule 30.2 RoP (via Rule 50.2 RoP) is a strict preclusion rule: subsequent amendments are only allowed on an exceptional basis. The patentee's argument that the auxiliary requests were a direct response to clarity objections raised in the claimant's reply was insufficient — the patentee should have foreseen such objections when filing the original auxiliary requests. The court also held that procedural efficiency alone does not justify admitting late amendments.