Request for expedition of the appeal admissible but unfounded (R. 9.3(b) RoP, R. 235 RoP).
EOFlow has not sufficiently substantiated, and the Court of Appeal fails to see, why it was necessary for EOFlow to await the decision of the Central Division on Menarini’s request for intervention, before filing the present request. By nevertheless doing so and taking ten days to file its Statement of appeal and grounds of appeal and this request, an order of the Court of Appeal would only be possible prior to the aforementioned oral hearings if Insulet would be given substantially less time for filing its response.
The Court of Appeal is of the opinion that EOFlow has thus by filing its request at an unnecessary late point of time, insufficiently taken into account the interests of Insulet.
