UPClytics
Alle Fälle anzeigen

UPC CFI 230/2023

7. Juli 2023·EP3435866 · SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR DISPLAY DEVICE AND SENSOR ELECTRONICS UNIT COMMUNICATION

Verfahrensdetails
Status
Case Closed (Keine Verletzung)
Verfahrensart
Verletzung
Kategorie
Hauptverletzungsklage
Parteien
Kläger
Vertreter
Beklagte
Vertreter
Division
Paris LD
Technologie
  • Instruments
    Medical technology
Sprache
English
Erste Entscheidung
19. Dez. 2023
Letzte Entscheidung
4. Juli 2024
EPA-Einspruch
Im Vergleich
Die Bilanz des Gerichts für diese Art von Verfahren, gezählt in erstinstanzlichen Entscheidungen. Eine Zahl in Klammern gibt an, auf wie vielen Entscheidungen eine Quote beruht.
Verletzung festgestelltMedian Tage bis zur ersten Entscheidung
Gesamt-UPC53% (62/117)124
Paris LDGesperrtGesperrt
Richter Camille LignièresGesperrtGesperrt
Richter Carine GilletGesperrtGesperrt
Richter Rute LopesGesperrtGesperrt
Richter Alain DumontGesperrtGesperrt

Vor dem UPC: Dexcom Group (39 Verfahren)·Abbott Group (67 Verfahren)

Entscheidungen
  • 2024-07-04

    Zusammenfassung: Decision on the merits by Paris Local Division (4 July 2024). EP 3 435 866 B1 (analyte monitoring / continuous glucose monitoring system) was entirely revoked for lack of inventive step; auxiliary requests 1 and 2 were also invalid (added subject-matter). DexCom's infringement action was dismissed in full. DexCom was ordered to bear costs. The court addressed jurisdiction on the revocation counterclaim, the carve-out under Art. 83 UPCA, claim interpretation, novelty and inventiveness.

    Rechtsfragen anzeigen (9)
    • Claim interpretation
    • Novelty
    • Inventive step (denied)
    • Added subject-matter
    • Auxiliary requests
    • UPC jurisdiction on revocation counterclaim
    • Art. 29-30 Brussels Ibis applicability
    • Carve-out (Art. 83 UPCA)
    • Costs
  • 2024-01-30
    Infringement ActionÖffentlich

    Zusammenfassung: The Paris Local Division panel, on review under Rule 333 RoP, partially upheld Abbott's application by increasing the upper limit of the penalty for breach of the confidentiality club from EUR 50,000 to EUR 250,000, to achieve consistency with a parallel confidentiality order issued by the Munich Local Division in related proceedings.

    Rechtsfragen anzeigen (3)
    • Rule 333 RoP: panel review of judge-rapporteur confidentiality order
    • Consistency between confidentiality orders in parallel UPC proceedings
    • Proportionality of penalty for breach of confidentiality club
  • 2024-01-24
    Infringement ActionÖffentlich

    Zusammenfassung: The Paris Local Division full panel issued a procedural order in the Dexcom v. Abbott infringement case, rejecting Abbott's request for leave to appeal the judge-rapporteur's confidentiality order of 19 December 2023, finding it was a case management order subject to Rule 333 RoP review rather than a directly appealable order.

    Rechtsfragen anzeigen (3)
    • Rule 220.2 RoP: leave to appeal case management orders
    • Distinction between appealable orders and orders reviewable under Rule 333 RoP
    • Confidentiality order appealability
  • 2023-12-19
    Infringement ActionÖffentlich

    Zusammenfassung: The Paris Local Division issued a procedural order in an infringement action brought by DexCom against multiple Abbott entities, granting Abbott's request to protect certain highly sensitive sales and revenue information contained in Abbott's statement of defence from public access.

    Rechtsfragen anzeigen (2)
    • Confidentiality order for sensitive commercial information in statement of defence
    • Protection of sales figures and revenues from public access
DokumenttitelDatumÖffentlich
Case Closure Formal Check2025-09-02Nicht öffentlich
withdrawal CoA 24-01-20252025-09-02Nicht öffentlich
Outcome of the Order2025-01-17Nicht öffentlich
Final order2025-01-17Öffentlich
Receipt2025-01-02Nicht öffentlich
Receipt2025-01-02Nicht öffentlich
2024 12 30 - Consent to Abbotts R.151 application withdrawal PDFA2024-12-30Nicht öffentlich
WITHDRAWAL OF APPLICATION FOR A DECISION ON COSTS PURSUANT TO RULE 1512024-12-30Nicht öffentlich
Headnote-and-Keywords2024-07-04Nicht öffentlich
Decision on the merits Dexcom1 546446 20232024-07-04Öffentlich
Zusammenfassung in einfacher Sprache

Dexcom sued multiple Abbott entities alleging infringement of EP 3435866 (a CGM sensor communication system) before the Paris Local Division; Abbott counterclaimed for revocation. The court found the patent lacked inventive step over the prior art, with both auxiliary requests 1 and 2 also invalid (the latter for added subject-matter). The court addressed an important jurisdictional principle: a claimant's Art. 83 UPCA carve-out limiting infringement claims cannot prevent the defendant from pursuing a full revocation counterclaim; all Dexcom's infringement claims were dismissed as a result.

Angenommene Argumente
Was das Gericht akzeptiert hat — nach Partei.
  • EP 3435866 lacks inventive step over prior art

    BeklagterRechtsgrundlage: Art. 138(1)(a) EPC; Art. 56 EPC; Art. 65(2) UPCA

    Hinweis: Paris Local Division found main claim lacked inventive step; both auxiliary requests also invalid (auxiliary requests 1 and 2 had added subject-matter or also lacked inventive step).

  • UPC has jurisdiction over revocation counterclaim notwithstanding claimant's carve-out limiting infringement claims

    BeklagterRechtsgrundlage: Art. 76(1) UPCA; Arts. 29-31 Brussels Ibis Regulation

    Hinweis: Court held that the parties' right to define scope of dispute under Art. 76(1) UPCA cannot restrict defendant's challenge to patent validity in a counterclaim for revocation.

  • Auxiliary requests 1 and 2 introduce added subject-matter beyond the original application

    BeklagterRechtsgrundlage: Art. 138(1)(c) EPC

    Hinweis: Court found auxiliary request 2 extended patent subject-matter beyond the application as filed; auxiliary request 1 also found invalid.

Zurückgewiesene Argumente
Was das Gericht nicht akzeptiert hat — und warum.
  • EP 3435866 is novel and inventive; dependent claims 2–9 are independently valid

    KlägerRechtsgrundlage: Art. 56 EPC

    Begründung: Novelty was accepted for claim 1, but inventive step was denied for all claims; Dexcom failed to provide specific arguments defending dependent claims 2–9 individually.

  • Infringement of EP 3435866 by Abbott entities' continuous glucose monitoring devices

    KlägerRechtsgrundlage: Art. 65(2) UPCA

    Begründung: Infringement action dismissed in full as patent was entirely revoked.

  • Abbott's carve-out defence limits scope of revocation counterclaim to UPC-claimed territories

    KlägerRechtsgrundlage: Art. 83 UPCA; Art. 76(1) UPCA

    Begründung: Court held the carve-out principle governing claimant's infringement scope does not restrict defendant's revocation counterclaim; no legal text in UPC law expressly limits such counterclaims.

Hinweise zur Anspruchsauslegung

The Paris Local Division discussed principles of claim interpretation for EP 3435866 (analyte monitoring system for continuous glucose monitoring). The court applied purposive construction, finding that the scope of the dispute is governed by party submissions while holding that general principles of claim interpretation favour technical meaning over literal/philological reading.