UPC Analytics
ENDE
Overview · Filed: —

ACT_14944/2024

ANALYTE SENSOR DEVICES, CONNECTIONS, AND METHODS

Provisional measuresProvisional MeasuresThe Hague LDApplication for provisional measures—
OverviewDecisionsReasoningCitationsDocumentsTimeline
Coverage: Partial.Reasoning extracted with partial coverage — some sections may be incomplete.
Plain-English summary

Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. sought a preliminary injunction against Sibio Technology Limited and Umedwings Netherlands B.V. before the Local Division The Hague for infringement of EP 2 713 879 B1, a continuous glucose monitoring device patent, relating specifically to the Sibio GS1 device. The court granted the injunction as all R. 211 RoP conditions were met, and rejected defendants' arguments regarding lack of urgency and purpose of the action, finding that defendants — who had voluntarily left the relevant markets — had no legitimate interest in opposing the relief. The injunction was limited to the GS1 device and covers Germany, France, the Netherlands and Ireland.

Accepted arguments
What the court agreed with — by party.

  • Abbott has sufficient legitimate interest in the injunction notwithstanding Sibio's unilateral cease-and-desist declaration, because no breach of the undertaking has been asserted and the action is not devoid of purpose

    ClaimantLegal basis: R. 360 RoP

    Note: Court held that there remained a need to adjudicate and the action was not devoid of purpose despite the defendants' voluntary exit from the market.

  • All conditions under R. 211 RoP for a preliminary injunction are met — standing, validity, infringement, and balance of interests

    ClaimantLegal basis: R. 211 RoP

    Note: Defendants had left the relevant markets, so had no legitimate interest in opposing the preliminary injunction; Abbott's interests outweighed theirs.

  • Sibio's late-raised argument at oral hearing that Abbott acted with unreasonable delay (GS1 known since October 2023) was inexcusably late and lacked legal conclusion

    ClaimantLegal basis: Principles of fair trial / timeliness

    Note: Court rejected the delay argument as unsubstantiated, lacking legal conclusion, and raised too late given the parties had pre-agreed to only 10 minutes of pleading time each.

Rejected arguments
What the court did not agree with — and why.

  • Application for information disclosure (sub (b) of the order sought)

    Claimant

    Reason: Court found insufficient legitimate interest within provisional measure proceedings: Abbott was already sufficiently aware of the requested information or the unilateral undertaking already provided it, and no breach had been asserted.

  • Action is devoid of purpose because defendants already ceased infringement

    RespondentLegal basis: R. 360 RoP

    Reason: Court held there was still a need to adjudicate: the cease-and-desist declaration did not eliminate legal interest in an injunction covering all relevant markets.

  • Abbott acted with unreasonable delay

    Respondent

    Reason: Argument was inconclusive, unsubstantiated, and raised inexcusably late (only at oral hearing despite extensive prior written procedure); did not actually plead unreasonable delay as a legal conclusion.

  • Security for costs of enforcement should be ordered

    RespondentLegal basis: R. 211.5 RoP

    Reason: Court found no damages could be envisaged from enforcement given defendants were largely absent from the market; ex officio no security required.

Key legal principles
Doctrines and rules cited in the reasoning.
Legitimate interest in injunction survives unilateral cease-and-desist declarationBalance of interests under R. 211 RoP — defendants who have left all relevant markets have no legitimate interest in opposing injunctionUrgency / promptness — arguments raised only at oral hearing without prior written notice and without drawing legal conclusion are rejected as inexcusably lateProvisional measures injunction limited to the specific device at issue (GS1)

Browse other cases on this principle.