ACT 547520/2023

—·EP3350592

Verfahrensdetails: Status
—
Verfahrensart
Verletzung
Kategorie
Hauptverletzungsklage
Parteien: Kläger
DexCom, Inc.
Vertreter: (Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan LLP)
Beklagte
Abbott Laboratories
Abbott Diabetes Care Inc.
Abbott GmbH
Abbott Diagnostics GmbH
Abbott Logistics B.V.
Abbott (S.A./N.V.)
Abbott s.r.l.
Abbott B.V.
Abbott Scandinavia Aktiebolag
Vertreter:
Division: Munich LD
Richter: Matthias Zigann · Presiding judge
Tobias Pichlmaier · Judge-rapporteur
Tatyana Zhilova · Legally qualified judge
Alain Dumont · Technically qualified judge
Technology: Medical Devices · CGM
Sprache: —
Erste Entscheidung: 31. Juli 2024

Ansprüche

Streitigall

Nichtig erklärtall

Hinweise: EP 3 350 592 revoked in its entirety; independent claim 1 and all dependent claims found invalid; infringement action dismissed.

Entscheidungen

2024-07-31
Nichtig erklärtVerletzung (Hauptsache)Infringement Action
Munich Local Division revoked DexCom's patent EP 3 350 592 (CGM system) in its entirety on Abbott's counterclaim for revocation, and dismissed all of DexCom's infringement claims. The patent was found invalid as granted and in its auxiliary request forms (1 and 2) for lack of novelty/inventive step. DexCom was ordered to bear all costs of the proceedings.
Rechtsfragen:Patent revocation on counterclaim under Art. 138(1) EPCNovelty and inventive step of CGM patentAmendment of patent (auxiliary requests dismissed)Dismissal of all infringement claims

Dokumente

EEFF85A10A9C793B399831DA464FB649_en.pdf2024-07-31EN

Abdeckung: Teilweise.Begründung teilweise extrahiert — einige Abschnitte können unvollständig sein.

Zusammenfassung in einfacher Sprache

DexCom Inc. brought an infringement action against multiple Abbott entities before the Munich Local Division concerning EP 3 350 592 (a CGM system patent). Abbott counterclaimed for revocation and succeeded: the court found the patent invalid for lack of novelty/inventive step both as granted and in DexCom's two auxiliary request forms, and revoked it entirely. DexCom's failure to advance specific arguments distinguishing the dependent claims was noted as a further reason those claims fell. All infringement claims were dismissed and DexCom was ordered to bear all costs.

Angenommene Argumente

Was das Gericht akzeptiert hat — nach Partei.

Patent EP 3 350 592 invalid as granted and in all auxiliary request forms
BeklagterRechtsgrundlage: Art. 138(1) EPC; Art. 65(2) UPCA
Hinweis: Munich LD upheld Abbott's counterclaim for revocation, finding the CGM patent invalid for lack of novelty/inventive step in all claim versions.
Dependent claims are invalid for same reasons as claim 1 where claimant provides no specific arguments distinguishing dependent claims
BeklagterRechtsgrundlage: Art. 138(1) EPC
Hinweis: Claimant merely asserted dependent claims contain claim 1 features and are novel/inventive for the same reasons; no specific arguments advanced; court held dependent claims also invalid.

Zurückgewiesene Argumente

Was das Gericht nicht akzeptiert hat — und warum.

EP 3 350 592 as granted is valid
KlägerRechtsgrundlage: Art. 54/56 EPC
Begründung: Patent found invalid for lack of novelty/inventive step as granted.
Auxiliary requests 1 and 2 are valid
KlägerRechtsgrundlage: Art. 54/56 EPC
Begründung: Both auxiliary requests also found invalid; dismissed.

Zentrale Rechtsgrundsätze

In der Begründung herangezogene Doktrinen und Regeln.

Patent revoked in entirety where invalid as granted and in all auxiliary request forms Claimant must provide specific arguments for each dependent claim; reliance on claim 1 reasoning without more is insufficient Invalidity defeats infringement action — all infringement claims dismissed

Weitere Fälle zu diesem Grundsatz ansehen.