UPC_CFI_556/2025 – Pirelli v Sichuan Yuanxing

Court
Local Division Milan
Date
Outcome
Granted
Sector
Other
Decision Type
PROCEDURAL

Expert Commentary

Rectification Facts 1. Pirelli filed a R. 353 RoP request for correction of the text of the reasoning in the decision issued on 26 May 2026. 2. The Court had stated: “Pirelli initially renounced the exclusive jurisdiction of the Court with an opt-out declaration dated 30-6-2023. The renouncement was then withdrawn on 26-11-2024”. Pirelli wanted that incorrect statement removed. Decision The request was filed within a month of the notification of the decision. The Court acknowledged the error and ordered correction as requested. Comment 1. Why does Pirelli ask for this correction? Do they want to show that they always believed in the UPC and did not first opt-out to see how good the UPC was? 2. Anyway, by asking for the correction they now have to figure out how the decision is to be executed. Did the Registry already serve the original decision in China? Is that service valid because that was the wrong document? Do they now have to serve also the present order or do they have to serve the decision as amended in the order, or both? Should the Court issue a new decision with the correction and should that be served? I hope Pirelli is not going to regret its action. Sometimes it may be better not to “cercare il pelo nell’uovo”. For the non-Italian speakers there is even a better translation of “splitting hairs”. In Italy they split the hair into four!: “spaccare il capello in quattro”.

Key Holdings

  • A party may request rectification of factual errors in the reasoning of a UPC decision.
  • Rectification requests must be filed within one month of the decision's notification.
  • The UPC will correct acknowledged factual errors in its decisions.
  • Rectification of a decision can lead to complexities regarding the proper service and execution of the amended decision.

Tags

  • Rectification
  • Procedural
  • Decision Correction
  • Service of Documents

Related Cases

View original decision