UPC Analytics
DEEN
Übersicht · Eingereicht: 4. Juli 2025

UPC_CFI_624/2025

ANALYTE SENSOR METHODS

Einstweilige MaßnahmenEinstweilige MaßnahmenThe Hague LDProvisional measuresCase Closed
ÜbersichtEntscheidungenBegründungZitateDokumenteZeitverlauf
Abdeckung: Teilweise.Begründung teilweise extrahiert — einige Abschnitte können unvollständig sein.
Zusammenfassung in einfacher Sprache

Abbott Diabetes Care obtained a preliminary injunction from The Hague Local Division against Sinocare and A. Menarini Diagnostics prohibiting the GlucoMen iCan CGM system across all UPC territories for infringement of EP 4 344 633 (FreeStyle Libre analyte sensor technology). The court also ordered delivery-up of infringing products and disclosure of distribution channels, but rejected Abbott's request for a customs-goods declaration under EU Regulation 608/2013 as unavailable in PI proceedings, and limited the information order to distribution data rather than financial figures.

Angenommene Argumente
Was das Gericht akzeptiert hat — nach Partei.

  • GlucoMen iCan infringes EP 4 344 633 covering continuous glucose monitoring sensor technology

    KlägerRechtsgrundlage: Art. 62 UPCA; R. 211 RoP

    Hinweis: The Hague Local Division found infringement sufficiently demonstrated for PI purposes and granted the injunction across all UPC member states.

  • Defendants should not be ordered to comply jointly and severally as independent companies

    Beklagter

    Hinweis: Court agreed that Sinocare and Menarini are independent companies and did not impose joint and several liability for the substantive injunction obligations.

Zurückgewiesene Argumente
Was das Gericht nicht akzeptiert hat — und warum.

  • Declaration that GlucoMen iCan is 'goods suspected of infringing an IP right' under EU Regulation 608/2013 should be granted as a provisional measure

    KlägerRechtsgrundlage: Art. 2(7)(a) of Regulation (EU) No 608/2013

    Begründung: Court held that such a declaration is not available as a provisional measure regardless of the merits.

  • Information order should include price, sales numbers, and cost data

    KlägerRechtsgrundlage: R. 211 RoP

    Begründung: Court found that financial data is only relevant for damages calculation which is premature at the PI stage; the information order was limited to distribution channels and product origins.

  • Information disclosure should be subject to confidentiality

    Beklagter

    Begründung: Court rejected confidentiality request given the limited scope of the ordered information disclosure.

Zentrale Rechtsgrundsätze
In der Begründung herangezogene Doktrinen und Regeln.
Declaration of 'goods suspected of infringing' under EU Customs Regulation 608/2013 is not available as a provisional measureInformation orders in PI proceedings are limited to distribution channels and origins; financial data (pricing, volumes) is premature as it relates to damagesIndependent co-defendants are not subject to joint and several liability for PI compliance orders

Weitere Fälle zu diesem Grundsatz ansehen.