ACT_14945/2024

ANALYTE SENSOR DEVICES, CONNECTIONS, AND METHODS

Provisional measuresProvisional MeasuresThe Hague LDApplication for provisional measures—

Overview Decisions Reasoning Citations Documents Timeline

Plain-English summary

Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. applied for provisional measures before The Hague Local Division against Sibio Technology Limited and Umedwings Netherlands B.V. concerning EP 3 831 283, a wearable glucose monitoring device patent. The court denied the preliminary injunction, finding on the balance of probabilities that claim 1 would more likely than not be held invalid for added matter, as the feature specifying the direction of coupling of the connector support through the distal-facing opening into the recess was not directly and unambiguously derivable from the application as filed.

Accepted arguments

What the court agreed with — by party.

Claim 1 more likely than not invalid for added matter: feature of connector support received through distal-facing opening into recess not directly and unambiguously derivable from application as filed
RespondentLegal basis: Art. 123(2) EPC
Note: The Hague Local Division found on balance of probabilities that the claimed feature specifying the direction of coupling (from below/distal side) of the connector support through the opening into the recess was not directly and unambiguously disclosed in the application as filed, as the cited embodiments worked in the reverse direction or required combination of separate passages without a pointer.

Rejected arguments

What the court did not agree with — and why.

Feature of connector support received through distal-facing opening into recess is supported by multiple passages and figures in the application as filed
ClaimantLegal basis: Art. 123(2) EPC
Reason: The court found that the cited passages and figures either showed a different embodiment requiring combination without a pointer, or showed the coupling direction working in the reverse manner to what claim 1 recites; no single passage/figure directly and unambiguously disclosed all features together in the claimed configuration.
Provisional reimbursement of costs ordered in favour of applicant
ClaimantLegal basis: Art. 69 UPCA; R. 118.5 RoP
Reason: Rejected: as applicant did not prevail, there was no basis for provisional cost reimbursement in its favour.

Key legal principles

Doctrines and rules cited in the reasoning.

added matter: claimed feature must be directly and unambiguously derivable from application as filed balance of probabilities test for validity in PI proceedings costs follow the event in PI proceedings even without main proceedings all dependent claims fall with the same added-matter defect as independent claim

Browse other cases on this principle.

Prior art relied on

References cited and the role they played.

WO 2011/119896Distinguished

Claim construction notes

The critical feature under construction was 'a connector support received through a distal-facing opening into a recess' in the enclosure's bottom portion. The court found this feature characterises a specific coupling direction (from below/distal side), which Abbott itself relied upon to distinguish prior art WO 2011/119896, but which was not directly and unambiguously derivable from the application as filed. The embodiments cited by Abbott either showed reverse coupling or required impermissible combination of separate passages.