🇪🇺 UPC

UPC_CoA_930/2025

Court

Court of Appeal (Luxembourg)

Type of action

procedural

Patent

EP4201327

FLUID DELIVERY DEVICE WITH TRANSCUTANEOUS ACCESS TOOL, INSERTION MECHANISM AND BLOOD GLUCOSE MONITORING FOR USE THEREWITH

Language

Claimant / applicant

EOFLOW Co., Ltd.
EOFlow Co., Ltd., Hwangsaeul‐ro, Bundang‐gu, Seongnam‐si, Gyeonggi‐do, Republic of Korea

Defendant / respondent

Insulet Corporation
Insulet Corporation, Acton, United States of America

Track this case

Get an email when a new order or decision is published in UPC_CoA_930/2025.

Decisions and documents (3)

2026-03-18procedural
Appellant:
EOFlow Co., Ltd.
Respondent:
Insulet Corporation
dismissed
Trade secrets or other confidential information lose their character as trade secrets or other confidential information if they are disclosed to the other party without an order pursuant to R. 262A RoP, or without any other restriction, for example an agreement between the parties or a voluntary undertaking. A request under R. 262.2 RoP does not automatically lead to protection against the other party disclosing the information.
Judge: Rian Kalden • Panel: Patricia Rombach, Steven Kitchen, Udo Matter, Ingeborg Simonsson, Rian Kalden
2026-02-04procedural
Appellant:
EOFlow Co., Ltd.
Respondent:
Insulet Corporation
dismissed
- Orders imposing a penalty payment (Art. 82(4) UPCA, R. 354.4 RoP) are not orders as specified in Art. 73(2)(a) UPCA or R. 220.1(c) RoP. The last sentence of R. 354.4 RoP reads: "(...) the Court may make an appropriate order which may be subject to an appeal pursuant to Rule 220.2." This means that an appeal against those orders is only admissible if leave to appeal is granted by the Court of First Instance who issued the order, or the Court of Appeal granted leave to appeal after discretionary review according to R. 220.4 RoP.
Judge: Rian Kalden • Panel: Patricia Rombach, Steven Kitchen, Udo Matter, Ingeborg Simonsson, Rian Kalden
2026-01-29procedural
Appellant:
EOFlow Co., Ltd.
Respondent:
Insulet Corporation
There is no implicit limitation on the use of information received as a result of the other party’s compliance with an order to communicate information pursuant to Art. 67 UPCA and R. 191 RoP. It is necessary to file a confidentiality request with regard to information which has to be communicated according to a Court order or decision (see CoA 14 October 2025, UPC_CoA_699/2025, Kodak v Fujifilm, para. 45). R. 262A RoP applies at least mutatis mutandis.
• Panel: Patricia Rombach, Steven Kitchen, Udo Matter, Ingeborg Simonsson, Rian Kalden

Weekly digest

A weekly email summarising new published decisions across European patent courts.