UPC CFI 230/2023
7. Juli 2023·EP3435866 · SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR DISPLAY DEVICE AND SENSOR ELECTRONICS UNIT COMMUNICATION
- Verfahrensdetails
- StatusCase Closed (Keine Verletzung)VerfahrensartVerletzungKategorieHauptverletzungsklage
- Parteien
- Kläger
- Dexcom Inc.Unternehmen
Vertreter- Anne-Charlotte le Bihan-Bird & Bird LLP
- Laurent Labatte-Bird & Bird LLP
- David Sproston-Hoffmann Eitle
- Mark Jones-Hoffmann Eitle
Beklagte- Abbott LaboratoriesUnternehmen
- Abbott Diabetes Care Inc.Unternehmen
- Abbott FranceUnternehmen
- Abbott (S.A./N.V.)Unternehmen
- Abbott B.V.Unternehmen
- Abbott s.r.l.Unternehmen
- Abbott Scandinavia AktiebolagUnternehmen
- Abbott GmbHUnternehmen
- Abbott Diagnostics GmbHUnternehmen
- Abbott Logistics B.V.Unternehmen
Vertreter- Wim Maas-Taylor Wessing
- Gisbert Hohagen-Taylor Wessing
- Christian Dekoninck-Taylor Wessing
- François Pochart-August Debouzy
- Eelco Bergsma-Taylor Wessing
- Thomas Adocker-Taylor Wessing
- Patricia Cappuyns-Taylor Wessing
- Christian Lederer-Taylor Wessing
- Dietrich Burkhard Kamlah-Taylor Wessing
- Division
- Paris LD
- Technologie
- InstrumentsMedical technology
- Sprache
- English
- Erste Entscheidung
- 19. Dez. 2023
- Letzte Entscheidung
- 4. Juli 2024
- EPA-Einspruch
- Abbott Diabetes Care Inc.Zulässig2021-08-18
- Abbott GmbH2021-10-07
| Verletzung festgestellt | Median Tage bis zur ersten Entscheidung | |
|---|---|---|
| Gesamt-UPC | 53% (62/117) | 124 |
| Paris LD | Gesperrt | Gesperrt |
| Richter Camille Lignières | Gesperrt | Gesperrt |
| Richter Carine Gillet | Gesperrt | Gesperrt |
| Richter Rute Lopes | Gesperrt | Gesperrt |
| Richter Alain Dumont | Gesperrt | Gesperrt |
Vor dem UPC: Dexcom Group (39 Verfahren)·Abbott Group (67 Verfahren)
Dieser Streit umfasst 6 weitere Verfahren
UPC CoA 569/2024·UPC APP 49196/2024·UPC APP 45331/2024·CC 586829/2023·CC 586960/2023 und 1 weitere
Starten Sie die kostenlose Testphase, um die Ausgänge zu sehen.
- 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
- 2024-01-30Infringement 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
- 2024-01-24Infringement 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
- 2023-12-19Infringement 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
| Dokumenttitel | Datum | Öffentlich |
|---|---|---|
| Case Closure Formal Check | 2025-09-02 | Nicht öffentlich |
| withdrawal CoA 24-01-2025 | 2025-09-02 | Nicht öffentlich |
| Outcome of the Order | 2025-01-17 | Nicht öffentlich |
| Final order | 2025-01-17 | Öffentlich |
| Receipt | 2025-01-02 | Nicht öffentlich |
| Receipt | 2025-01-02 | Nicht öffentlich |
| 2024 12 30 - Consent to Abbotts R.151 application withdrawal PDFA | 2024-12-30 | Nicht öffentlich |
| WITHDRAWAL OF APPLICATION FOR A DECISION ON COSTS PURSUANT TO RULE 151 | 2024-12-30 | Nicht öffentlich |
| Headnote-and-Keywords | 2024-07-04 | Nicht öffentlich |
| Decision on the merits Dexcom1 546446 2023 | 2024-07-04 | Öffentlich |
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.
EP 3435866 lacks inventive step over prior art
BeklagterRechtsgrundlage: Art. 138(1)(a) EPC; Art. 56 EPC; Art. 65(2) UPCAHinweis: 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 RegulationHinweis: 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) EPCHinweis: Court found auxiliary request 2 extended patent subject-matter beyond the application as filed; auxiliary request 1 also found invalid.
EP 3435866 is novel and inventive; dependent claims 2–9 are independently valid
KlägerRechtsgrundlage: Art. 56 EPCBegründung: 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) UPCABegründung: 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) UPCABegründung: 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.
Weitere Fälle zu diesem Grundsatz ansehen.
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.