Insulet v EOFLOW (UPC_CFI_773/2025 and UPC_CFI_774/2025)
Decision date:
15 October 2025
Osborne Clarke summary
- This was an application by Insulet for costs against EOFLOW additional to those provisionally settled by a decision issued on 22 July 2025. It sought about €195,000 in addition to the provisional amount of €200,000.
- The Milan CD found the application admissible and partly well founded.
- It stated that, in accordance with Article 69(1) UPCA and Rule 152.1 RoP, Insulet was entitled to recover reasonable and proportionate costs for representation in the proceedings on the merits. Insulet's costs were within the UPC's Scale of Ceilings for Recoverable Costs adopted under Rule 152.2 RoP.
- The court excluded a number of items from recoverable costs. In particular, it excluded:
- Costs that were "unintelligible" because the relevant invoices were redacted. Pursuant to Rule 156 RoP, an applicant must indicate exactly which cost item it is requesting payment for so the judge can review it. The court said that a party has a choice "either submit the costs to the Court or keep them confidential and waive their payment. Obscured costs cannot be settled, even if they are only partly redacted, as it would be unclear which part of the costs is related to the proceedings and which part is not".
- Costs relating to the applicant's personal circumstances must also be excluded, giving the example of filing a motion to reschedule an interim conference due to a conflicting hearing. The court stated that it was not reasonable and proportionate for the losing party to pay for the scheduling problems of the applicant's lawyers.
- Costs relating to enforcement must be excluded as they do not fall within the scope of Rule 151 RoP. Not only was enforcement of a matter for the national courts and outside of the jurisdiction of the UPC, but the wording of Rule 150 RoP did not allow for the compensation of costs incurred after the publication of the decision.
- Having excluded unrecoverable costs, the court assessed whether the remainder of about €157,000 was proportionate. It noted that assessment focused on amount of costs, rather than their necessity. The court took into account a "fair balance" between the complexity of the case and necessary preparations. In light of this, it made an "equitable reduction" of 30% or the costs deemed reasonable. It awarded Insulet nearly €115,000 additional costs.
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.