Technology disputes in Italy involve a large and varied amount of litigation, ranging across sectors covered by traditional patents (mechanical, electronic and pharmaceutical), telecommunications and other fields that are often hotbeds of new industry technology standards that can be protected by standard-essential patents (SEPs). Such standards may, in turn, generate licensing disputes. Disputes also often occur in sectors that involve more innovative and trend-setting technologies, such as the use of algorithms, artificial intelligence and non-fungible tokens.

Trade secrets represent a less traditional area that has seen a rise in disputes because of the combination of an improved protection system (following the implementation of the EU Trade Secrets Directive in 2016) and increased awareness regarding the high costs, length and inefficiencies of the current patenting and patent dispute systems. Trade secrets are, in fact, largely used to protect new technologies that do not fit (or, at least, do not completely fit) within the traditional scope of patent protection.

Copyright disputes arising from the unauthorised use and sharing of proprietary content, usually by large social network platforms, represent a sector that generates a significant amount of complex litigation, involving a delicate balance between the opposing interests of right holders, internet service providers (ISPs) and users.

Finally, in recent years we have observed an increase in disputes in which the use of technology is a common feature, sitting at the intersection of data privacy and consumer litigation.

i      Intellectual property disputes and patent disputes

Despite the large variety of fields and rights involved in the technology sector, the largest number of technology actions in Italy still revolve around traditional patent infringement litigation, with a steady increase in the amount of litigation involving SEPs. Infringement disputes embrace both product patents and process patents (particularly common in the pharmaceutical sector). Copyright actions based on the unauthorised use of proprietary content on social media and other content-sharing platforms also account for a large part of recent technology litigation.

In Italy, the key remedy for patent infringement (and infringement of intellectual property (IP) rights in general), including in trade secrets litigation, is a civil action in which the patent holder can obtain:

a     a final injunction (including a penalty for any breach of the injunction), seizure or recall from the market, as well as assignment or destruction of infringing goods; and

b     the award of legal costs and damages, including moral damages.

Publication of the judgment completes the range of remedies available to a patent holder. In disputes involving SEPs, the right holder aims to obtain an injunction with the final purpose of forcing the competitor to accept fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory terms.

Licensing-related disputes may still involve infringement claims along with damage compensation claims. Typical remedies in this kind of action are termination of the agreement and damage compensation. Where industry standard technology patents are involved, assessment of the nature of the patent may be required.

Common Issues

Patent and technology-related litigation in general in Italy is a serious undertaking requiring considerable expertise. For this reason, engaging suitable experts and specialist counsel is key (lawyers in Italy generally do not have a technical background). In cases where infringement is not straightforward (for example, infringement under the doctrine of equivalent, indirect or contributory infringement), an evaluation of very complicated aspects may be required that goes beyond technical analysis. Close cooperation between lawyers and technical experts may therefore make a significant difference to the success of a case.

Any lack of certainty as to the robustness of a patent may become an issue when seeking to enforce the patent because, typically, one of the main defences raised by an infringer is a challenge to the validity of the patent to be enforced.

If the patentee does not have comprehensive evidence of the infringement, a preliminary identification order may be required to access the infringer’s premises and search and identify the technology allegedly in violation of the patent holder’s rights. This is particularly important when acting to obtain a preliminary injunction, in which a solid prima facie case is one of the requirements for success.

Another common issue in patent disputes concerns the identification of the competent court and the prevention of forum shopping. In patent litigation involving the validity of a patent, competence lies exclusively with the court of the place where the patent has been registered. However, in infringement disputes, the right holder has discretion to choose between the place of business of the infringer (if based in Italy), the right holder’s own place of business (if the infringer is located abroad) or the place where the infringement occurs (i.e., where the product is manufactured or sold). It is not uncommon to involve third-party distributors as the basis for establishing the competence of a specific court.

Determination of the competent court is also critical in SEP disputes. When it comes to definition of the terms of technology licensing, the choice of one court over another may make a huge difference.

In disputes involving trade secret misappropriation, the main difficulties encountered by right holders concern the burden of proof of the infringement. Apart from evidence of the type and content of secrets allegedly violated, and of the requirements for their protection, providing evidence of the misappropriation by the infringer often proves very difficult. Search and identification orders are a key measure to obtain this kind of evidence.

Finally, obtaining proof of damage and quantification of damages may be tricky, and ultimately too difficult and time-consuming. In most cases, the plaintiff is not in a position to prove having suffered a loss of profits as a consequence of an infringement and, therefore, must rely on the profits obtained by the infringer through the sale of the protected technology. Full discovery is not provided by the Italian system, and access to the infringer’s accounting books requires the judge to issue a specific disclosure order and the appointment of an accountant to review the relevant documents. An infringer’s refusal to disclose relevant documentation is not subject to any specific sanction and may result in a disappointing quantification of damages (damages equitably awarded by judges are rarely satisfactory for the right holder).

ii     System development and service delivery disputes

System development disputes do not differ substantially from IP-related disputes in terms of remedies, evidence and witness structure, and enforcement. The following sections will therefore focus on the peculiarities of these kinds of disputes compared with general IP litigation.

A large number of technology actions in Italy arise from information technology (IT) contracts. Such actions usually concern contractual breaches, pursuant to which one of the parties seeks compensation for damage that arises from a breach of contractual obligations, often in relation to the level or quality of IT services provided. These disputes often start upon the conclusion of the business relationship and may also involve the migration of data to the platform managed by the newly appointed service provider, which is why clients may require interim measures to assure the continuity of services.

The key remedy for IT contract litigation in Italy is a civil action in which the client is usually seeking compensation for damage (or the migration of data to another provider) while the provider seeks payment for services already rendered and, sometimes, for the migration of data and transfer of source code or IP rights.

Common Issues

As with patent litigation, IT contract litigation in Italy is a serious undertaking that requires considerable expertise. Engaging suitable experts and, therefore, specialist counsel is also essential in these disputes. Assessment of breaches of service level obligations or non-compliance of IT systems in terms of functionality, interaction or performance often requires the evaluation of complex technical aspects.

In the absence of clear evidence of a breach, the court may require a preliminary technical description. The court will appoint an expert in charge of assessing the relevant technical issues, with the assistance of the experts appointed by the parties. This is particularly important when, for example, the status of a platform may change pending the court case. This preliminary remedy often provides leverage to push the party at fault to settle. In practice, in the subsequent civil case, courts frequently base their decision on the outcome of this preliminary analysis.

iii         Data processing disputes and class actions

Apart from traditional IP- and IT-related litigation, we have recently seen a substantial increase in disputes in which the use of technology is a common feature, sitting at the intersection of data privacy and consumer litigation.

The cause of action is breach of data protection or consumer laws, usually in relation to a violation of the principles of transparency, fairness and the informed consent of individuals.

The kind of legal action that can be brought depends upon the specific piece of legislation allegedly breached, as well as the remedy sought by the claimant. For example, it may take the form of an administrative proceeding before the competent consumer or data protection authority, or a legal proceeding in the civil courts, such as an action seeking compensation for damage – a class action in the case of consumer litigation.

The action may be brought about by a claimant or initiated ex officio by the competent authority (i.e., the data protection or consumer authority), following, for example, investigations or reports by third parties.

Procedural rules such as timelines, interim remedies and enforcement are determined according to the procedural rules governing the relevant legal action. Similarly, the appeal phase depends on the first instance proceedings; for example, a decision issued by the data protection authority may be challenged before the civil courts following the rules of special labour proceedings, while a decision issued by the consumer authority may be challenged before the special administrative courts.

Whatever the specific procedural features, the significance of this type of dispute is that it highlights the growing interplay between data protection and consumer litigation within the technology realm. The same general principles are in fact addressed by both consumer protection and data protection laws (e.g., transparency in dealing with individuals), thereby providing different redress procedure options, and this can lead to a domino effect with data protection proceedings commonly being reconfigured and then represented as a technology consumer dispute, and vice versa.

In the context of technology disputes, there has been a recent trend of actions taken by employees against their employer in relation to the use of the company’s technological devices and systems (i.e., use of company laptops or smartphones). Generally, the path is the same as that detailed above.

Furthermore, this kind of technology dispute also has an EU-wide dimension, in the sense that litigation started in one country is usually presented again in another – again, by a claimant or ex officio by competent authorities.

This kind of technology dispute raises major concerns for companies in light of:

a     thresholds for applicable fines under data protection laws (€20 million or 4 per cent of the global annual turnover of the preceding year, whichever is higher),

b     the impact of adverse and sometimes unpredictable decisions in the case of class actions,

c     the significant fallout in terms of reputational damage to not only customers but also investors and business partners, and

d     probably most importantly, the fact that such disputes are fundamentally linked with technology and concern the latest developments at the very core of the digital transformation impacting on all businesses, makes them seem somehow inevitable.


In the area of data protection and consumer litigation, we have observed a recent increase in actions generally brought on the initiative of the competent data protection and consumer authorities. In this regard, there have been leading cases in which Italian regulatory authorities have made the first use of specific procedural measures available to protect individuals’ fundamental rights and freedoms within the realm of data protection and consumer legislation.

A further boost to data privacy litigation will presumably come from the recent class action law, which entered into force in Italy in May 2021.[1] This new law significantly expands plaintiffs’ rights, entitling them to join a class action even after the favourable judgment on the merits has been issued by the court, among other things. Moreover, litigation is also likely to increase in light of the new law on representative actions for the protection of consumers’ collective interests.[2]

In the area of patents, although trade secret protection is often preferred to the long and costly patenting process, there are strong expectations that the EU unitary patent system, once established, will foster trust in and provide impetus to both the patenting system and patent litigation. Notably, Italian patent applications directed to the European Patent Office increased by 6.5 per cent in 2021, although these then dropped slightly by 1.1 per cent in 2022.

The unitary patent system entered into force on 1 June 2023, together with the international Agreement on the Unified Patent Court (UPC). The Italian government has agreed with France and Germany to set up the third branch of the central division of the UPC in Milan. A reallocation of cases pending at the central division was also decided: Milan will hear cases concerning pharma patents without supplementary protection certificates, as well as non-pharmaceutical biotech, agriculture, food and tobacco, personal and household goods, and sports and entertainment matters. As to next steps, the government has been completing the legal and operational procedures required for the seat to be established and become fully operational within a year.

Conversely, the implementation of Article 17 of the Digital Copyright Directive[3] may ultimately result in a decrease in the number of copyright disputes started by right holders against ISPs in connection with the unauthorised uploading and sharing of copyrighted content by users of social network platforms, as user-generated content may be exempt if it is uploaded and made available for purposes of quotation, criticism or review, or caricature, parody or pastiche. Nonetheless, the hosting defence will no longer be available to content-sharing platforms that make available to the public user-generated content in breach of copyrighted material, unless they comply with certain requirements set out in the Directive itself.[4]

Finally, and in contrast, contentious provisions of the Directive may cause an increase in litigation: specifically, Article 15 on the fair remuneration of publishers of press publications for online use of their content by information society service providers, especially in light of the extensive range of powers vested in the national Communications Regulatory Authority known as AGCOM; Articles 18–20 are also likely to lead to further litigation, with both rights holders and collective management organisations trying to leverage the Directive’s new transparency obligations to obtain more information from users and platforms, with a view to renegotiating deals and ultimately claiming additional and fair remuneration when the remuneration originally agreed proves to be disproportionately low.


IP disputes – interim or provisional remedies

Interim and precautionary measures can be requested both prior to and in the course of patent litigation. No particular pre-action steps are required. Furthermore, there is no pretrial phase in the Italian legal system.

Before starting a civil action, both parties to a potential IP dispute have the right to ask the president of the court division specializing in business matters to order a preliminary technical opinion,[5] which will serve as an alternative dispute resolution procedure and provide an objective basis on which to settle patent disputes and prevent litigation. Unlike the interim measures described below, a request for a preliminary technical opinion does not require there to be a risk of imminent and irreparable harm to the right of the applicant. Such an opinion may focus on both the validity of a patent and its infringement.

Remedies available to the patent owner include preliminary injunctions, and identification, search and seizure orders. In addition, the right holder is also entitled to obtain an order against the alleged infringer or other persons involved in the infringing activities for disclosure of documents and information about the origin and distribution network of the infringing goods or services. This kind of remedy is often relied upon by the right holder in copyright litigation to obtain information about users of content-sharing platforms who use, upload and share protected content without authorisation.

Injunctions, identification and seizure may be granted on the basis of a patent application while still pending, provided that the application has been published or directly notified to the alleged infringer.

These measures may be ordered on the basis of a specific motion filed with the competent court, provided that the following two basic requirements are met: fumus boni iuris (i.e., a solid presumption of the validity of the patent and evidence of the infringement); and periculum in mora (i.e., the urgency of the matter because of a danger of imminent and irreparable harm deriving from the infringer’s activities).

The preliminary relief may be also granted ex parte (i.e., without the court first informing the adverse party of the motion). However, the judge may issue an order ex parte only where there is a very strong prima facie case and informing the alleged infringer would seriously impair the chances for the patent holder to obtain concrete protection of its rights.

Orders granting injunction, identification or seizure may be appealed within 15 days of their notice to the defendant.[6]

Interim injunctions or equivalent measures granted prior to the establishment of an action for infringement must be followed by the action for infringement within 20 working days or 31 calendar days. Failure to do so shall result in the expiration of the order.

Claims for damages are only allowed in the proceedings on the merits. Although damages may include compensation for direct economic damages, lost profits and non-economic effects such as moral damages (i.e., damage to personal reputation or defamation), punitive, treble or statutory damages are not recognised under Italian law. Damages can be awarded on the basis of the different criteria set out under Article 125 of the Code of Industrial Property (CPI).[7] The fair royalty and the infringer’s account of profits often replace the traditional loss-of-profits criteria, which present a very high burden of proof for the right holder. Where the above criteria do not help in the specific case, the amount of the damages can still be equitably determined by the judge.


i      IP disputes – interim or provisional remedies

Competence in civil litigation regarding patent matters, including in patent litigation, is concentrated in a limited number of court divisions specialized in business matters.[8] Judges do not usually have a technical background, so the court usually appoints a technical expert to support the judges on matters of patent validity or infringement.

During the investigations carried out by the court-appointed expert for this purpose, the parties are entitled to appoint their own experts to represent them in the technical examination process, which consists of the exchange of briefs and opinions, meetings with the court-appointed expert, laboratory tests and experiments, and other procedures of this kind. At the end of this process, the court expert files a final written report. Usually, judges follow their appointed expert’s technical conclusions and arguments, although there is no legal duty to do so. The last word therefore rests with the judges, who may disagree with their own technical experts.

The Italian patent litigation system does not provide for jury trials or lay judges. Italy has an adversarial court model and decisions of the courts are exclusively based on the evidence presented by the parties, with no inquisitorial power conferred on the judge. Inquiries and testing may be ordered by a judge solely on technical issues. If the hearing of witnesses is requested by the parties and admitted by the court, a judge may ask questions and seek specific clarifications from witnesses, technical experts and counsel.

Furthermore, there is no statutory presumption of the amount of the damages under court procedure. Damages are quantified based on evidence provided by the parties, as detailed above.

ii     IT contractual disputes – specialist courts and special procedures

In contrast to IP disputes, in civil litigation competence for purely contractual matters lies with ordinary civil courts, unless an IP right is also involved in the dispute, in which case competence automatically vests in the court divisions that specialise in IP matters. Judges do not normally have a technical background, so they often appoint a technical expert to support them on IT contract matters.

During the investigations carried out by the court-appointed expert, the parties are entitled to appoint their own technical experts and have their say in the technical examination process. The examination process ends with a final written report filed by the court expert. In the vast majority of cases, judges follow the expert’s technical conclusions and arguments entirely, although there is no legal duty to do so. The last word therefore lies with the judges, who may disagree with their technical experts.

iii    Protection of trade secrets

Civil proceedings in Italy are public. Italian procedural laws include general provisions that allow courts to exclude the public from hearings only for reasons relating to security, public order and decency. All the briefs, deeds and documents submitted during the proceeding are confidential and accessible only by the parties and their lawyers and counsel, although the final decision is public. In cases where a party needs to protect its confidential information from being accessed by the other party, it may require the judge to limit the access to the adverse party’s lawyers and consultants only or to limit the access to certain information only (full information would remain available to the court and its experts only).

With specific regard to patent infringement proceedings, Article 121, Paragraph 3 of the CPI provides that if the court issues an order of disclosure at the request of one of the parties, it shall take all the measures necessary to protect the confidential information of the opposing party not relevant to the legal action.

iv    Periods of limitation

The limitation period for patent or general IP infringement is five years from the date the right holder knew or ought to have known the facts upon which the action is based. In principle, validity actions can be brought until the expiration of the patent.

Damages claims in patent litigation are also subject to a limitation period of five years.

In contrast, contractual claims (including damages claims) are generally subject to the longer limitation period of 10 years.

The limitation period for contractual claims is 10 years from the occurrence of damage or another relevant contractual event presented in court.

v     Schedules and timelines

The expected timing for obtaining a first instance decision in an IP case – which is immediately enforceable – may range from two to three years depending on a number of factors, including the level of complexity, the need for technical investigations and the competent courts’ workload. Timing does not differ in a material way from the timing of other disputes falling within the competence of the courts specialised in business matters and not involving patents, although patent litigation tends to have a slightly longer timeline than trademark litigation, where no technical examination is needed. In general, the duration of proceedings has steadily shortened since the introduction of the specialised courts.

The timings in IT contract disputes do not differ in a material way from the timings in other disputes falling within the competence of the civil courts, and these range from two to three years, although IT contract litigation tends to have a slightly longer timeline because of the need to appoint technical experts.


i      IP disputes – evidence and witnesses

The burden of proof lies with the plaintiff who alleges an infringement or the invalidity of a patent. As a general principle, each party must prove the facts on which its claims or exceptions are based. The decision of the court must then be based solely on the evidence provided by the parties. The Italian legal system does not provide for discovery.

Notwithstanding this, if the alleged infringement affects a process patent, the burden of proof shifts to the defendant. In the case of a process patent, there is a legal presumption that any item identical to that obtained by the patented process originates from that process when the item obtained through the patented process is new or the identical item has most likely been produced through the patented process and the owner of the patent fails, using reasonable efforts, to identify the process by which the item was actually obtained.

However, although full discovery is not provided under the Italian legal system, in Articles 121 and 121 bis of the CPI, the law provides the option to request the infringer to make available certain documents or to supply information about its suppliers and distributors.[9] In particular, in civil litigation, the court may order the disclosure of specific documents or information relevant to the proceedings.

Legal privilege is not specifically regulated under Italian legislation. As a general principle, attorney–client communication is considered privileged, and lawyers are not obliged to give evidence of information acquired in the course of their professional activity.

However, the issue of privilege is not as critical in Italy as it is in other legal systems that provide a formal process of disclosure. Such a process is unknown in Italy, where in principle the parties must rely on their own dossier of evidence, which is submitted to the court.

Anyone with technical and scientific knowledge, experience and training may be engaged by a party as an expert for evidentiary purposes. Experts generally provide written reports forming a pro veritate opinion regarding infringement or validity of the patent at issue. These reports are normally filed by the plaintiff at the beginning of the interim proceedings or the action on the merits to support the plaintiff’s claim. Advice rendered by a party’s expert has in principle the same value as other evidence or supporting documents filed by the party.

Each party calls its own witnesses and specifies the issues on which each witness must be examined. The judge examines the witnesses identified by the parties and the parties may not question witnesses directly or cross-examine them. Parties are not required to call witnesses to appear before the court if they deem this to be unnecessary. Inventors may be called as witnesses unless they appear as a party in the action, in which case the inventor may be heard in court, subject to different formalities.

ii     IT systems and contractual disputes – evidence and witnesses

The evidence and witness principles and rules discussed in Section V.i apply to IT contract disputes. Specifically (and without prejudice to the general rule that each party must prove the facts on which its claims or exceptions are based), once the plaintiff proves the alleged breach (i.e., poor service performance), it is up to the defendant to prove that failure in performance was beyond its control – for example, because of actions of the client, or force majeure or other unforeseeable causes.


Enforcement of a judgment awarded by the court, especially with respect to search and seizure orders, is carried out by the winning party with the cooperation of the court’s bailiff and, in most cases, that of a court expert appointed by the judge.

Pure injunction orders do not require specific enforcement but are often assisted by a monetary penalty that applies if the infringer does not comply with the court order. However, enforcement of the penalty is not automatic or straightforward and requires a new intervention by the court, first assessing the violation and then ordering the payment.

Destruction or withdrawal of infringing goods should be complied with spontaneously by the infringer. If not, the right holder may require the intervention of the bailiff to enforce the order.

Damages awarded by the court are also normally paid spontaneously by the infringer upon a written request by the right holder. However, if this does not occur (because the infringer has no financial capacity or simply refuses to pay), the right holder will have to start foreclosure proceedings.


In civil actions for infringement of IP rights, the parties may settle a matter at any time up until judgment is delivered. Settlement negotiations may occur formally between lawyers of the parties.

Actions for patent infringement may be subject to arbitration, provided that the parties expressly agreed to do so in writing by means of a specific provision contained in a contract or other binding written instrument. Arbitration of disputes regarding patent rights may take place both prior to the filing of an infringement action and in the course of the proceedings. Arbitration prior to an infringement action is normally preceded by a legal notice whereby the owner of a patent invites the alleged infringer to cease any conduct that may constitute an infringement or, alternatively, to agree and submit the dispute to arbitration.

Mediation is possible as an alternative to court patent proceedings and can be used at any stage of a dispute. It may be considered as a last resort to avoid costly litigation after negotiations conducted by the parties themselves have failed. This procedure can also be used at any time during litigation to explore the possibility of settlement.

Mediation is not a suitable procedure for settling all kinds of disputes. Where bad-faith patent infringement or counterfeiting is involved, mediation (which requires the cooperation of both sides) is unlikely to be appropriate. Mediation is especially suitable where the dispute occurs between parties to a continuing contractual relationship, such as a licensing or distribution agreement or a research and development contract.

Unlike in patent litigation, mediation is a suitable procedure for settling IT contract disputes, both where the dispute occurs between parties to a continuing contractual relationship and where the parties must agree on complicated procedures to migrate data upon the conclusion of the contractual relationship. In practice, in the latter situation, court proceedings (including interim measures) would probably prove to be ineffective from a timing viewpoint.


There is no questioning the fact that technology is now established as a key driver in all aspects of contemporary life. The disruption it can bring to entire economic, political and social systems is undeniable, and this potential for disruption is only further exacerbated by crisis situations such as the recent covid-19 pandemic. From a legal perspective, the fast development of technology brings questions about the risks or legal consequences that may arise from both the exploitation of technology and the increasing reliance placed on it by businesses, and also by individuals.

The rise in litigation involving both data privacy and consumer issues, coupled with the need to update Italy’s legislation on class actions, are clear indicators of the new issues that may develop in relation to uses of technology. The trend for data protection and consumer litigation is expected to continue to grow, especially in light of current patterns of increasing digitalisation and close collaboration between national regulatory authorities at the EU level.

In the more traditional area of patent disputes, material developments are expected from the full and final implementation of the EU unitary patent system, which entered into force in June 2023. Whether or not this will affect the amount of patent litigation in Italy will depend on the propensity of companies to opt in or out of the exclusive jurisdiction of the UPC. In addition, this new system will still require a further bedding-in period before it is fully up and running. As for copyright, the recent implementation of the Digital Copyright Directive in Italy, and notably Article 17 of the Directive, is very likely to have a strong immediate impact on the copyright dispute landscape, especially with respect to the potential liability of content-sharing platforms for the infringing nature of content posted by their users.

This article was first published in the 3rd edition of the Lexology Technology Disputes Law Review by Law Business Research Ltd, Holborn Gate, 330 High Holborn, London, WC1V 7QT, UK

© 2023 Law Business Research Ltd www.thelawreviews.co.uk

[1]     Law No. 31 of 12 April 2019 entered into force on 18 May 2021 and, among other things, introduces the following changes: the extension of the scope of the class action to anyone holding an ‘individual homogeneous right’; a third phase for the formation of the class and adjudication of the quantum, led by the common representative of the class and the delegated judge appointed by the court; a contingency fee system providing for the defendant’s obligation to pay the claimant’s lawyer and the common representative of the class an amount in addition to the one that he or she will have to pay to each member of the class; the option to settle the dispute during the admissibility phase and up until the oral discussion, or upon a joint initiative of the common representative of the members of the class and the defendant, even after the court decision on the merits; and the option for anyone that has an interest in stopping or preventing the repetition of a behavior being able to file a request for an injunction order.

[2]     Legislative Decree No. 28 of 10 March 2023 (implementing Directive (EU) 2020/1828) entered into force on 7 April 2023, with effect from 25 June 2023.

[3]     Directive (EU) 2019/790 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 April 2019 on copyright and related rights in the digital single market, and amending Directives 96/9/EC and 2001/29/EC.

[4]     Pursuant to Article 17 of the Copyright Directive, as implemented in Italy by Legislative Decree No. 177/2021 (available at https://informazioneeditoria.gov.it/it/notizie/decreto-legislativo-8-novembre-2021-n-177-recepimento-della-direttiva-ue-2019789-del-parlamento-europeo-e-del-consiglio-del-17-aprile-2019/) an online content-sharing service provider performs an act of communication to the public or an act of making available to the public for the purposes of this directive when it gives the public access to copyright-protected works or other protected subject matter uploaded by its users.

[5]     Article 128 of the Code of Industrial Property (CPI); available at https://uibm.mise.gov.it/index.php/it/ normativa/codice-della-proprieta-industriale.

[6]     Appeals are heard by a panel of three judges that belong to the same court issuing the order. However, the individual judge who issued the order will not be part of the panel.

[7]     Article 125 of the CPI: Compensation for damage and restitution of profits obtained by the author of the infringement (see footnote 5).

[8]     There are currently 22 such court divisions across the country, located in Milan, Brescia, Turin, Trento, Bolzano, Venice, Trieste, Genoa, Bologna, Ancona, Cagliari, Campobasso, Catanzaro, Florence, L’Aquila, Perugia, Rome, Potenza, Naples, Bari, Palermo and Catania.

[9]     Article 121 of the CPI: Allocation of the burden of proof (see footnote 5).


Lorenzo de Martinis is a partner and coordinator of the Dispute Resolution Practice Group of Baker McKenzie Italian Offices (Rome and Milan). Lorenzo and his team are top ranked and highly recommended in the main international legal directories such as Chambers and The Legal 500. Lorenzo specializes in technology disputes and trade secrets litigation. From 2001 he is professor from practice at MBA programs of the University of Bologna and Bocconi University of Milan.


Francesca Gaudino is the Head of Baker McKenzie’s Information Technology & Communications Group in Milan. She focuses on data protection and security, advising particularly on legal issues that arise in the use of cutting edge technology. She has been recognized in Chambers Europe’s individual lawyer rankings from 2011 to 2014. Ms. Gaudino is a regular contributor on international publications such as World Data Protection Review, DataGuidance, and others. She routinely holds lectures on data privacy and security at post-graduate courses of SDA – Manager Direction School of the Milan Bocconi University and Almaweb – University of Bologna. She regularly speaks at national and international conferences and workshops on the same topics.


Gaetano Iorio Fiorelli is a member of the Dispute Resolution department in Baker McKenzie‘s Milan office. From February to April 2009, Mr. Iorio Fiorelli served at the Firm’s Dispute Resolution department in London under an Associate Training Program. He has been an adjunct professor of international and European law at the Bocconi University, Milan since 2005. He has also been a member of the Legal Affairs Committee of Federchimica (the Italian Federation for the Chemical Industry) since fall 2007. Mr. Iorio Fiorelli's practice is focused on dispute resolution, commercial and corporate litigation, bankruptcy law and insurance law. He has extensive experience with contract disputes, corporate litigation and arbitration.


Lorenza Mosna is an associate at Baker & McKenzie's office in Milan.