UPC Analytics
ENDE
Overview · Filed: —

ACT_547520/2023

InfringementMain Infringement ActionMunich LDInfringement Action—
OverviewDecisionsReasoningCitationsDocumentsTimeline
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 formsClaimant must provide specific arguments for each dependent claim; reliance on claim 1 reasoning without more is insufficientInvalidity defeats infringement action — all infringement claims dismissed

Browse other cases on this principle.