UPC CoA 901/2025

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.

A 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.

Urgency 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.

Necessity 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.

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.

Claims 1 and 14 contain added matter and lack an inventive step, making the patent more likely than not invalid.

Feature 1.7(c) excludes status information provided or overlaid by the receiver unit itself (e.g. battery life data).

The 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.

The preliminary injunction should be limited to the reimbursement market only.

A security for enforcement of EUR 400,000 should be ordered against Appellant under Art. 82(2) UPCA and R. 352 RoP.

The cross-appeal seeking to overturn the first-instance order on urgency grounds should be declared admissible and granted.