How to Enforce an Italian Patent Against Chinese‑made Imports in 2026: a Practical Playbook

Patent enforcement against Chinese imports in Italy has never been more strategically important, or more procedurally complex, than it is in 2026. Recent amendments to Italy’s Codice della Proprietà Industriale (CPI), enacted under Legislative Decree No. 30/2005, have refined the tools available to rights‑holders seeking injunctive relief and border seizures. At the same time, the Unified Patent Court (UPC) continues to reshape the forum‑selection calculus for patentees whose rights extend beyond Italian borders. Meanwhile, data from the EUIPO’s enforcement reports consistently identify China as the leading provenance country for goods detained at EU borders on intellectual‑property grounds.

This playbook provides Italian and EU patentees, in‑house counsel, and IP managers with a step‑by‑step operational workflow, from customs seizure through civil litigation and coordinated Chinese enforcement strategy, to stop infringing goods before they reach the Italian market.

Why 2026 Is a Decisive Year for Patent Enforcement Against Chinese Imports in Italy

Three converging developments make 2026 the year to act. First, Italy’s CPI amendments have strengthened the evidentiary framework for preliminary injunctions and expanded the scope of remedies available in patent import seizure cases. Second, the UPC’s evolving fee structure and growing body of case law now give rights‑holders a credible pan‑European alternative to national courts for cross‑border enforcement. Third, developments in China, including policy shifts on anti‑suit injunctions and updated provisions in the Chinese Patent Law, require Italian patentees to think multi‑jurisdictionally from the outset.

How can you stop infringing goods made in China being imported into Italy? The short answer: deploy a coordinated strategy combining EU customs border measures under Regulation (EU) No 608/2013, urgent Italian court injunctive relief under the CPI, and, where the supply chain warrants it, parallel enforcement action in China. The sections below break each element into actionable steps.

Quick Compliance Checklist: Eight Immediate Actions

Before diving into the detailed playbook, rights‑holders should prioritise these eight actions in the first 72 hours after identifying a suspected infringement:

1. Identify suspect shipments. Monitor customs entries, marketplace listings, and trade‑show intelligence for goods matching your patent claims.
2. Preserve evidence. Secure product samples, screenshots, invoices, and shipping documentation before they disappear.
3. Engage Italian IP counsel. Instruct a specialist patent litigation lawyer to assess infringement and prepare for urgent relief.
4. File a customs detention application. Submit an Application for Action (AFA) to the Agenzia delle Dogane e dei Monopoli under Regulation (EU) No 608/2013.
5. Consider a preliminary injunction. If goods are already in circulation or a shipment is imminent, prepare an inibitoria cautelare application.
6. Engage Chinese counsel. Instruct a PRC‑qualified lawyer to investigate the manufacturer and preserve evidence in China.
7. Review UPC options. Determine whether a unitary patent or validated European patent makes the UPC a viable forum for broader relief.
8. Set a budget. Cross‑border enforcement requires realistic cost planning, see the cost table below.

Step 1: Identify Infringing Imports and Build Your Evidence Package

Effective patent enforcement against Chinese imports in Italy begins well before any court filing. The quality of your evidence package determines the speed and success of every subsequent step, from customs seizure to preliminary injunction.

Trace the Supply Chain

Mapping the full import chain, from the Chinese manufacturer through any intermediaries, trading companies, and freight forwarders to the Italian importer of record, is essential. This information supports both Italian proceedings and any parallel action in China. Useful investigative tools include customs import records (accessible via the Agenzia delle Dogane), trade databases, B2B platform records, and industry intelligence. Where possible, identify the specific factory or factories producing the infringing goods, as this information will be critical if you later pursue a Chinese enforcement strategy.

Collect Technical Evidence

Technical evidence establishes that the imported product falls within the scope of your patent claims. Compile the following:

• Product samples. Obtain physical samples of the suspected infringing goods through test purchases, trade‑show acquisitions, or seized shipments.
• Reverse‑engineering reports. Commission an independent technical expert to analyse the product and map its features against your patent claims.
• Claim charts. Prepare detailed claim‑by‑claim comparisons showing how each element of the patent reads onto the infringing product.
• Laboratory analysis. For chemical, pharmaceutical, or materials patents, independent lab reports carry significant weight in Italian courts.

Commercial and Shipment Evidence

Commercial documentation ties the infringing goods to specific shipments and importers. Collect invoices, purchase orders, bills of lading, packing lists, and customs declarations. Pay particular attention to Harmonised System (HS) codes used in customs filings, as these help customs authorities identify future shipments of the same goods. Chain‑of‑custody documentation for any physical samples is essential, Italian courts will scrutinise the provenance of evidence, and any break in the chain can weaken your case.

Evidence originating from China requires special handling. Documents must be properly translated into Italian by a certified translator and, depending on the type of document, authenticated via consular legalisation at the Italian consulate in China. China is not a party to the Hague Apostille Convention, so the simplified apostille process is not available, full consular legalisation is the standard route for admissibility in Italian proceedings.

Step 2: Customs Seizure and EU/Italian Border Measures

Can you use customs border measures to seize Chinese imports that infringe your patent? Yes, and this is often the fastest and most cost‑effective first line of defence. Regulation (EU) No 608/2013 provides the legal framework for rights‑holders to request that EU customs authorities detain goods suspected of infringing intellectual property rights, including patents.

Legal Basis: Regulation (EU) No 608/2013

This regulation empowers customs authorities across the EU, including Italy’s Agenzia delle Dogane e dei Monopoli, to act on applications from rights‑holders to detain or suspend the release of goods suspected of infringing IPRs. The regulation covers goods in transit, goods declared for release for free circulation, and goods in other customs situations. For patent holders, it means that a single Application for Action (AFA) filed in Italy can result in the detention of infringing shipments at Italian ports, airports, and land borders. An AFA filed in one Member State can also be extended to other EU Member States under the regulation’s mutual‑recognition provisions.

According to EUIPO enforcement data, China (including Hong Kong) consistently accounts for the largest share of detained goods by provenance at EU borders. This underscores the practical importance of having an active AFA in place for any Italian patentee whose technology is at risk of being replicated by Chinese manufacturers. For broader guidance on how to protect your intellectual property across borders, rights‑holders should develop a coordinated, multi‑jurisdictional approach.

How to File a Customs Detention Request in Italy

The process for filing an AFA with the Agenzia delle Dogane involves the following steps:

1. Prepare the application. Include a detailed description of the patent (registration number, claims summary, drawings), a description of the infringing goods, and any available intelligence on expected shipments (ports of entry, consignees, HS codes).
2. Submit to the Agenzia delle Dogane. Applications are filed with the central customs authority, which then circulates the information to border offices.
3. Provide a security or undertaking. Rights‑holders may be required to provide an undertaking covering costs of storage and destruction of detained goods if the claim proves unfounded.
4. Monitor and respond. When customs detains a shipment, you will be notified and must act within strict statutory deadlines to initiate proceedings or confirm destruction.

Customs Detention: Timeline and Deadlines

Once goods are detained, the rights‑holder has a narrow window to act. If the importer does not consent to destruction, the rights‑holder must initiate civil or criminal proceedings within the deadline or the goods will be released. This is where the customs process connects directly to the civil remedies discussed next. Consulting the international intellectual property guide can help rights‑holders understand how these procedures interact across jurisdictions.

Step 3: Civil Remedies in Italy, Injunctions, Seizures, and Damages

Italian patent litigation offers a robust set of civil remedies under the CPI (Legislative Decree No. 30/2005), and these tools are particularly effective when combined with customs border measures to create a comprehensive patent enforcement strategy against Chinese imports.

Preliminary Injunction (Inibitoria Cautelare)

The preliminary injunction is the workhorse of urgent patent enforcement in Italy. Under the CPI, a rights‑holder can apply for an inibitoria cautelare, an order prohibiting the alleged infringer from continuing to import, sell, or use the infringing goods. Italian courts specialising in IP matters (the designated sections of the Tribunale delle Imprese) can issue preliminary injunctions rapidly, often within weeks of filing where the applicant demonstrates:

• Fumus boni iuris, a prima facie case that the patent is valid and infringed.
• Periculum in mora, a risk of irreparable harm if relief is not granted before trial.

The evidentiary threshold requires a well‑prepared claim chart, technical expert opinion, and documentary evidence linking the defendant to the infringing imports. Industry observers expect that the typical timeline for obtaining a preliminary injunction in patent import seizure cases ranges from two to eight weeks, depending on the court and complexity of the technical issues.

Conservatory Seizure and Criminal Referral

In addition to injunctive relief, the CPI provides for descrizione (detailed description of infringing goods) and sequestro (seizure). A conservatory seizure allows the court to order the physical seizure of infringing goods, manufacturing equipment, and related documentation. This is particularly valuable when goods are in warehouses or distribution centres.

Where the infringement involves large‑scale counterfeiting, for example, industrial quantities of patent‑infringing goods imported through organised channels, Italian law permits criminal referral. The Guardia di Finanza and the Public Prosecutor can investigate and prosecute under Italy’s criminal IP provisions. Criminal enforcement often produces faster seizures and can serve as a powerful deterrent, though it requires evidence of wilful infringement at a commercial scale.

From Judgment to Execution

Once a final judgment or confirmed preliminary injunction is obtained, enforcement steps include:

• Permanent injunction. Prohibiting future importation and sale of infringing goods.
• Destruction order. Court‑ordered destruction of seized infringing goods and any tooling or moulds used to produce them.
• Damages award. Compensation calculated on the basis of lost profits, unjust enrichment, or a reasonable royalty.
• Publication of the judgment. The court may order publication in trade journals or newspapers at the infringer’s expense.
• Penalty payments. Courts can impose per‑day penalties (astreintes) for non‑compliance with injunctive orders.

Step 4: Forum Choice, UPC vs Italian Courts for Cross‑Border Enforcement

One of the most consequential decisions for rights‑holders in 2026 is where to sue. The Unified Patent Court now offers a centralised forum for patents with unitary effect and European patents that have not been opted out, while Italian national courts remain the primary venue for Italian national patents and opted‑in European patents validated in Italy. For patentees dealing with Chinese‑made imports entering multiple EU markets, the choice of forum shapes the scope, speed, and cost of relief.

When to Choose Which Forum

Early indications suggest that many rights‑holders are adopting a parallel‑filing strategy: seeking urgent relief in Italian courts for immediate border protection while commencing UPC proceedings for broader EU‑wide injunctive relief. Where the infringing supply chain is rooted in China, coordinating a third track of enforcement in Chinese courts, or at least evidence‑preservation actions, is increasingly viewed as essential for a comprehensive cross‑border enforcement campaign.

Step 5: Working with Chinese Counsel and Gathering Evidence from China

Effective patent enforcement against Chinese imports in Italy increasingly requires engagement on the ground in China. Understanding the current landscape for foreign investment in China provides useful context for navigating the PRC legal system.

Evidence Preservation and Collection in China

Chinese counsel can assist with several critical evidence‑gathering steps:

• Notarised purchases. A PRC notary public can witness test purchases of the infringing product directly from the manufacturer or its domestic distributors, creating an authenticated evidence trail.
• Factory inspections. In some cases, administrative enforcement bodies (such as local market supervision authorities) can conduct inspections of manufacturing facilities and seize infringing goods and tooling.
• Evidence preservation orders. Chinese courts can issue pre‑litigation evidence preservation orders, securing critical documents and physical evidence before formal proceedings begin.
• Private investigation. Licensed PRC investigators can document manufacturing operations, supply chains, and export channels.

Translation, Legalisation, and Admissibility

Anti‑Suit Injunctions: A Critical Procedural Risk

Rights‑holders pursuing parallel enforcement in Italy (or the UPC) and China must account for the risk of anti‑suit injunctions issued by Chinese courts. Chinese courts have in recent years demonstrated a willingness to issue orders restraining parties from pursuing or enforcing foreign patent proceedings. The likely practical effect of recent policy developments is to require even more careful coordination between Italian and Chinese counsel, with particular attention to the sequencing and timing of filings in each jurisdiction. Any parallel‑filing strategy should include a risk assessment of anti‑suit injunction exposure, prepared jointly by Italian and Chinese counsel.

Step 6: Costs, Timeline, and Tactical Decision Matrix

Cross‑border patent enforcement is an investment. The table below provides indicative cost bands to help rights‑holders budget effectively.

Industry observers expect the most cost‑effective approach for many rights‑holders to be a phased strategy: start with a customs AFA (low cost, high impact), escalate to a preliminary injunction in Italian courts if goods are detained and the importer contests, and layer in UPC or China proceedings only where the scale of infringement justifies the additional investment.

Conclusion: Your First 72 Hours Matter

Successful patent enforcement against Chinese imports in Italy depends on speed, preparation, and multi‑jurisdictional coordination. The first 72 hours after identifying a suspected infringement are critical: preserve evidence, file a customs AFA with the Agenzia delle Dogane, instruct Italian IP counsel, and engage qualified Chinese counsel to investigate the manufacturer.

The rights‑holder who acts decisively, deploying customs border measures as a first line of defence, backing them with Italian court injunctive relief, and layering in UPC or China proceedings where justified, stands the best chance of stopping infringing goods before they reach Italian consumers. Cross‑border enforcement is inherently complex, but the legal tools available in 2026 are more powerful and more accessible than ever. The key is to use them in the right sequence, with the right evidence, and with coordinated counsel in each relevant jurisdiction.

For rights‑holders navigating these decisions, consulting the Global Law Experts lawyer directory can connect you with specialists in patent enforcement across Italian, EU, and Chinese jurisdictions.

Sources

1. Regulation (EU) No 608/2013 on customs enforcement of IPRs
2. EUIPO, 2024 Enforcement of IPRs Report
3. Italian Codice della Proprietà Industriale (Legislative Decree No. 30/2005)
4. Agenzia delle Dogane e dei Monopoli, Italian Customs
5. Chambers Practice Guides, Patent Litigation 2026 (Italy)
6. Jacobacci Avvocati, Counterfeiting Protection and Enforcement: Italy
7. Società Italiana Brevetti (SIB), Enforcement Overview
8. Lexology, Italy‑China IP Cooperation (MoU)