Insulet Corporation vs Menarini Diagnostics and EOFlow

13 Feb 2025Court Report

High Court dismisses EOFlow's application to set aside jurisdiction in patent infringement case

Background

The High Court of Justice in England and Wales recently delivered a significant ruling in the case involving Insulet Corporation and defendants Menarini Diagnostics Limited, A. Menarini Diagnostics Srl, and EOFlow Co Ltd. The case, presided over by Mr. Justice Richards, centred on allegations of patent infringement concerning insulin pump technology.

The Parties

Insulet Corporation, a company based in Delaware, USA, claimed that EOFlow, a Korean company, and its European distributors Menarini Italy and Menarini UK, infringed its UK patents for insulin pumps. The patents in question were EP (UK) 1 874 390 and EP (UK) 4 201 327, which Insulet alleged were violated by the GlucoMen Day Pump manufactured by EOFlow.

Jurisdictional Challenge

EOFlow challenged the jurisdiction of the English courts, seeking to set aside an order allowing Insulet to serve a claim against them outside the UK. The challenge was based on EOFlow's assertion that there was no serious issue to be tried regarding their involvement as joint tortfeasors with Menarini UK.

Confidentiality Concerns

During the proceedings, EOFlow raised concerns about the confidentiality of certain information discussed in court. However, Mr. Justice Richards determined that the public interest in open justice outweighed EOFlow's claims of confidentiality, leading to the release of the judgment in unredacted form.

Legal Findings

The court found that there was indeed a serious issue to be tried regarding EOFlow's potential liability as a joint tortfeasor. This decision was based on the existence of a common design between EOFlow and Menarini to import and sell the GlucoMen Day Pump in the UK, which could potentially infringe Insulet's patents.

Common Design and Procurement

The court examined the relationship between EOFlow and Menarini, particularly the Supply and Distribution Agreement (SDA) that granted Menarini exclusive rights to distribute the pump in certain territories, including the UK. The court inferred that this agreement indicated a common design to infringe the patents, as EOFlow's manufacturing of the pump facilitated Menarini's distribution activities.

Commercial Realism

Mr. Justice Richards emphasised the importance of commercial realism in assessing the relationship between EOFlow and Menarini. The court noted that the exclusivity and branding arrangements, along with public statements about the partnership, suggested a coordinated effort to market the product in key jurisdictions like the UK.

Outcome

Ultimately, the court dismissed EOFlow's application to set aside the jurisdiction order, allowing Insulet's claims to proceed in the English courts. The decision underscored the potential for liability in cases where manufacturers and distributors engage in coordinated actions that may infringe on existing patents.