ACT 547520/2023

—·EP3350592

Case details: Status
—
Action
Infringement
Category
Main Infringement Action
Parties: Claimants
DexCom, Inc.
Reps: (Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan LLP)
Respondents
Abbott Laboratories
Abbott Diabetes Care Inc.
Abbott GmbH
Abbott Diagnostics GmbH
Abbott Logistics B.V.
Abbott (S.A./N.V.)
Abbott s.r.l.
Abbott B.V.
Abbott Scandinavia Aktiebolag
Reps:
Division: Munich LD
Judges: Matthias Zigann · Presiding judge
Tobias Pichlmaier · Judge-rapporteur
Tatyana Zhilova · Legally qualified judge
Alain Dumont · Technically qualified judge
Technology: Medical Devices · CGM
Language: —
First decided: Jul 31, 2024

Claims

At issueall

Revokedall

Notes: EP 3 350 592 revoked in its entirety; independent claim 1 and all dependent claims found invalid; infringement action dismissed.

Decisions

2024-07-31
RevokedInfringement meritsInfringement Action
Munich Local Division revoked DexCom's patent EP 3 350 592 (CGM system) in its entirety on Abbott's counterclaim for revocation, and dismissed all of DexCom's infringement claims. The patent was found invalid as granted and in its auxiliary request forms (1 and 2) for lack of novelty/inventive step. DexCom was ordered to bear all costs of the proceedings.
Legal issues:Patent revocation on counterclaim under Art. 138(1) EPCNovelty and inventive step of CGM patentAmendment of patent (auxiliary requests dismissed)Dismissal of all infringement claims

Documents

EEFF85A10A9C793B399831DA464FB649_en.pdf2024-07-31EN

Coverage: Partial.Reasoning extracted with partial coverage — some sections may be incomplete.

Plain-English summary

DexCom Inc. brought an infringement action against multiple Abbott entities before the Munich Local Division concerning EP 3 350 592 (a CGM system patent). Abbott counterclaimed for revocation and succeeded: the court found the patent invalid for lack of novelty/inventive step both as granted and in DexCom's two auxiliary request forms, and revoked it entirely. DexCom's failure to advance specific arguments distinguishing the dependent claims was noted as a further reason those claims fell. All infringement claims were dismissed and DexCom was ordered to bear all costs.

Accepted arguments

What the court agreed with — by party.

Patent EP 3 350 592 invalid as granted and in all auxiliary request forms
RespondentLegal basis: Art. 138(1) EPC; Art. 65(2) UPCA
Note: Munich LD upheld Abbott's counterclaim for revocation, finding the CGM patent invalid for lack of novelty/inventive step in all claim versions.
Dependent claims are invalid for same reasons as claim 1 where claimant provides no specific arguments distinguishing dependent claims
RespondentLegal basis: Art. 138(1) EPC
Note: Claimant merely asserted dependent claims contain claim 1 features and are novel/inventive for the same reasons; no specific arguments advanced; court held dependent claims also invalid.

Rejected arguments

What the court did not agree with — and why.

EP 3 350 592 as granted is valid
ClaimantLegal basis: Art. 54/56 EPC
Reason: Patent found invalid for lack of novelty/inventive step as granted.
Auxiliary requests 1 and 2 are valid
ClaimantLegal basis: Art. 54/56 EPC
Reason: Both auxiliary requests also found invalid; dismissed.

Key legal principles

Doctrines and rules cited in the reasoning.

Patent revoked in entirety where invalid as granted and in all auxiliary request forms Claimant must provide specific arguments for each dependent claim; reliance on claim 1 reasoning without more is insufficient Invalidity defeats infringement action — all infringement claims dismissed

Browse other cases on this principle.