UPC CoA 901/2025
6. Nov. 2025·EP3988471 Einheitspatent · DISPLAYS FOR A MEDICAL DEVICE
- Verfahrensdetails
- StatusCase ClosedVerfahrensartBerufungKategorieHauptberufung
- Parteien
- Beklagte
- A. Menarini Diagnostics s.r.l.Unternehmen
- Sinocare Inc.Unternehmen
Vertreter- Edoardo Barbera-Bird & Bird LLP
- Thierry Lautier-Bird & Bird LLP
- Division
- Court of Appeal
- Technologie
- InstrumentsMedical technology
- Mechanical engineeringHandling
- Sprache
- English
- Erste Entscheidung
- 17. Apr. 2026
- EPA-Einspruch
- Dexcom, Inc.Zurückgenommen2024-04-12
| Median Tage bis zur ersten Entscheidung | |
|---|---|
| Gesamt-UPC | 124 |
| Richter Ulrike Voß | Gesperrt |
| Richter Bart van den Broek | Gesperrt |
| Richter Nathalie Sabotier | Gesperrt |
| Richter Gérard Myon | Gesperrt |
| Richter Dorothea Hofer | Gesperrt |
Vor dem UPC: Abbott Group (67 Verfahren)·A. Menarini Diagnostics s.r.l. (16 Verfahren)
Dieser Streit umfasst 3 weitere Verfahren
4 weitere Beklagte zum selben oder einem verwandten Patent
CC 20188/2024·CC 13509/2024·UPC CFI 425/2023·UPC CFI 424/2023
Starten Sie die kostenlose Testphase, um die Ausgänge zu sehen.
Weitere Verfahren: Court of Appeal·2025
- 2026-04-17Appeal RoP220.1Öffentlich
Zusammenfassung: The Court of Appeal set aside the first-instance order of the Local Division The Hague (which had dismissed Abbott's application for provisional measures) and granted a preliminary injunction prohibiting Respondents from indirectly infringing claims 1 and 14 of EP 3 988 471 B2 in all UPC Contracting Member States except Romania. The Court found it more likely than not that the patent is valid and infringed by the GlucoMen iCan CGM system, and declared the Respondents' cross-appeal on urgency inadmissible.
Rechtsfragen anzeigen (9)
- Claim construction — whether event data icons must be displayed on or near the graph line of the timeline graph, or whether placement in a separate panel/section suffices
- Infringement — whether GlucoMen iCan (CGM system and iCan App) infringes claims 1 and 14 of EP 3 988 471
- Validity — added matter (claims 1 and 14)
- Validity — inventive step, including treatment of non-technical features under Art. 52(2) EPC
- Urgency — whether Appellant acted with sufficient diligence before filing the preliminary injunction application
- Necessity and balance of interests — whether preliminary injunction was warranted given competitive dynamics and market harm
- Admissibility of cross-appeal — whether Respondents were adversely affected by the first-instance order for purposes of R. 220.1 / R. 237 RoP
- Territorial scope of injunction — exclusion of Romania; non-extension to Sinocare iCan i3
- Security for enforcement — request under Art. 82(2) UPCA and R. 352 RoP rejected
| Dokumenttitel | Datum | Öffentlich |
|---|---|---|
| Verfahren abgeschlossen | 2026-04-17 | Nicht öffentlich |
| Entscheidung | 2026-04-17 | Nicht öffentlich |
| Final Order | 2026-04-17 | Öffentlich |
| Mündliches Verfahren abgeschlossen | 2026-03-26 | Nicht öffentlich |
| Hearing recording reference document | 2026-03-26 | Nicht öffentlich |
| Anordnung | 2026-03-20 | Nicht öffentlich |
| Order | 2026-03-20 | Öffentlich |
| Anordnung | 2026-03-20 | Nicht öffentlich |
| Order | 2026-03-20 | Öffentlich |
| Receipt | 2026-03-19 | Nicht öffentlich |
The event data icons feature (1.13(c)) of claim 1 requires only that icons are placed at locations on the graph according to the time of the event, not that they appear on or near the graph line itself; the GlucoMen iCan therefore satisfies this feature.
KlägerRechtsgrundlage: Art. 69 EPC and Protocol on Interpretation; claim construction principles from UPC_CoA_335/2023 and UPC_CoA_768/2024A non-technical feature should not be excluded from the assessment of inventive step merely because it would be a 'non-invention' under Art. 52(2) EPC standing alone; it may still contribute to technical character through interaction with other claim features.
KlägerRechtsgrundlage: Art. 52(2) EPC; inventive step assessment principlesUrgency requirements were satisfied: the relevant date was 24 April 2025 (product launch / user guide publication), and Appellant filed its application approximately eight weeks later after diligently investigating infringement, testing products and assessing market impact.
KlägerRechtsgrundlage: R. 211.2 RoP; Art. 62 UPCANecessity and balance of interests favours injunction: Appellant faces price erosion in both cash pay and reimbursement CGM markets, erosion of market share, and long-term harm that is difficult to quantify or reverse.
KlägerRechtsgrundlage: Art. 62(2) UPCA; R. 211.3 RoP
The GlucoMen iCan does not infringe claim 1 because the event data icons are not displayed on or near the graph line of the timeline graph but in a separate panel/section of the screen.
BeklagterRechtsgrundlage: Art. 69 EPC; claim constructionClaims 1 and 14 contain added matter and lack an inventive step, making the patent more likely than not invalid.
BeklagterRechtsgrundlage: Art. 123(2) EPC; Art. 56 EPCFeature 1.7(c) excludes status information provided or overlaid by the receiver unit itself (e.g. battery life data).
BeklagterRechtsgrundlage: Art. 69 EPC; claim constructionThe application lacked urgency because Appellant did not act for 1.5 years against the Sinocare iCan i3 (allegedly technically identical) and waited approximately two months after 24 April 2025 before filing.
BeklagterRechtsgrundlage: R. 211.4 RoP; urgency requirementsThe preliminary injunction should be limited to the reimbursement market only.
BeklagterRechtsgrundlage: Art. 62 UPCA; proportionalityA security for enforcement of EUR 400,000 should be ordered against Appellant under Art. 82(2) UPCA and R. 352 RoP.
BeklagterRechtsgrundlage: Art. 82(2) UPCA; R. 352 RoPThe cross-appeal seeking to overturn the first-instance order on urgency grounds should be declared admissible and granted.
BeklagterRechtsgrundlage: R. 220.1 RoP; R. 237 RoP