The Unified Patent Court (UPC) Milan Local Division has ruled in favour of Alpinestars S.p.A., granting an extension until 27 February 2025 to file its Statement of Defence and counterclaim for revocation in an ongoing patent dispute with Dainese S.p.A..
The case concerns EP4072364 and EP3498117, patents owned by Dainese, which alleges infringement by Alpinestars and other defendants. Alpinestars requested an extension of the deadline, arguing that a related appeal hearing at the European Patent Office (EPO) regarding EP 3498117, scheduled for 13 February 2025, could impact the case and improve procedural efficiency.
Dainese opposed the request, arguing that UPC_CoA_22/2024 (Carrier v. BITZER Electronics) set a precedent against delaying revocation proceedings due to pending EPO decisions. However, the Court clarified that the circumstances were different—UPC_CoA_22/2024 dealt with a request to stay the proceedings entirely, whereas Alpinestars was only seeking a deadline extension, which would not interrupt the case's overall progress.
In its reasoning, the Judge-Rapporteur emphasized that:
"The requested extension allows for overall procedural efficiency, on one hand not staying these proceedings – a power of the Court – and on the other hand waiting for the upcoming EPO decision. The principle of efficiency is therefore guaranteed, while also ensuring the right to a full adversarial process, which in the present case includes knowledge and examination of the decisions of the EPO."
This approach ensures that waiting for the EPO decision does not hamper fair and efficient proceedings, as parties, including Dainese, will still have the opportunity to submit observations under Rule 36 RoP once a decision by the EPO is issued.
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.
