1. Key takeaways
Late-filed prior art is generally inadmissible.
The UPC emphasizes a front-loaded procedural system, generally disallowing the introduction of new prior art after the exchange of written submissions. This approach safeguards procedural fairness and prevents undue delays (Art. 76 UPCA, Rules 171, 172, and 263 RoP).
In this case, the claimant's attempt to introduce a US patent as prior art during the reply phase was rejected due to its late filing. The court emphasized that the claimant had ample opportunity to conduct thorough prior art searches earlier in the proceedings.
Security for costs can be ordered for either party.
The UPC may order either party, including the claimant, to provide security for costs if there are valid concerns about their financial stability (Art. 69(4) UPCA, Rule 158 RoP).
The court underscored that Rule 158 RoP, pertaining to security for costs, applies broadly to both claimants and defendants, even though Article 69 UPCA specifically mentions security for the defendant. This broader interpretation is particularly relevant in cases involving cross-actions, as seen in this case.
2. Division
Central Division Milan
3. UPC number
UPC_CFI_597/2024
4. Type of proceedings
Revocation Action
5. Parties
Applicant/Claimant: EOFLOW Co., Ltd.
Respondent/Defendant: Insulet Corporation
6. Patent(s)
EP 4 201 327
7. Jurisdictions
UPC
8. Body of legislation / Rules
Rule 158 RoP, Art. 69 UPCA, Art. 76 UPCA
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
