UPC CFI, CD Milan, 11 April 2025, Eoflow v Insulet: Late filed prior art and security for costs of € 500.000
11-07-2025 Print this page
No further exchange of written pleadings after CoA decision of 30 April 2025 in PI proceedings (R. 36 RoP).
The parties have fully argued their respective positions at both the preliminary and the substantive stages of the proceedings and their positions have been well examined, sometimes even repeatedly.
Instructions for interim conference (R. 103 RoP). US’159 (Flaherty) inadmissible as late filed: could have been produced earlier ((Article 76 UPCA,)
In a revocation action, prior art (potentially detrimental to the patent or not) cannot be filed at a later stage. The filing of prior art at late stage, or at the stage of the replies prevents the opponent from filing full observations (reply and rejoinder) on a crucial point of the legal assessment. This is contrary to the adversarial principle laid down in Art. 76 UPCA.
Eoflow to provide security for costs of € 500.000 (R. 158 RoP). The company's overall situation appears to be not positive, either from the point of view of its assets and liabilities or from the point of view of its sales and expansion prospects, and it is at least doubtful from the point of view of its liquidity.
