EOFlow v Insulet (UPC-COA-0000930/2025)
Decision date:
18 March 2026
Osborne Clarke summary
- The Court of Appeal rejected EOFlow's appeal against the Milan CD's dismissal of confidentiality requests under Rule 262.2 RoP. It held that, in the absence of an express confidentiality order, business information that EOFlow had disclosed to Insulet under an obligation to render accounts was not subject to any implicit restriction and had therefore ceased to be confidential.
- EOFlow, a South Korean manufacturer of insulin pumps, had been found to have infringed Insulet's patent. The Milan CD ordered EOFlow to provide Insulet with complete information on the extent of its infringing acts. It rejected EOFlow's subsequent application for confidentiality under Rule 262.2 RoP.
- EOFlow appealed against the rejection of the confidentiality request. It argued that the information it had disclosed – such as contractual arrangements, invoices, packaging lists, turnover numbers, prices and emails from business partners – was classical business information and not publicly accessible. Provision of the information to Insulet under an obligation to render accounts did not mean it had become public, as Insulet was only permitted to use it for the purposes of pursuing its infringement claims. There was an implicit procedural limitation to its use.
- The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal. It rejected EOFlow's argument that there was an implicit procedural limitation on the use of the information. It stated that only an order under Rule 262A RoP allows the court to restrict the use of confidential information by the other party. Where information has been disclosed without an order under Rule 262A RoP, or another restriction, it will generally no longer be considered a trade secret or confidential information.
- In EOFlow's case, as Insulet had received the information in question without any restriction (whether an order under Rule 262A, an agreement between the parties or a voluntary undertaking), the Court of Appeal held that the information was longer a trade secret or other confidential information. It noted that the same did not apply to the information relating to a settlement agreement with EOFlow's exclusive distributor, Menarini, which Insulet agreed should be dealt with confidentially.
Issue
Curious about how UPC decisions might impact your business? Have questions about the UPC?
Reach out to our patents team for expert guidance and support.