UPClytics
ENDE
Sign inStart trial
View all cases

UPC CFI 1086/2026

Mar 27, 2026·EP3960072 · COMPACT ON-BODY PHYSIOLOGICAL MONITORING DEVICES AND METHODS THEREOF

Follow
Case details
Status
Case Closed
Action
Provisional measures
Category
Provisional measures
Parties
Claimants
Representatives
Division
Milan LD
Judges
Technology
  • Instruments
    Medical technology
Language
English
First decided
Sep 7, 2026
EPO Opposition
How this compares
The court's record for this kind of case, counted in first-instance rulings. A figure in brackets is the number of rulings a rate rests on.
Preliminary injunction grantedMedian days to first decision
All UPC54% (38/70)124
Milan LDLockedLocked
Judge Pierluigi PerrottiLockedLocked
Judge Alima ZanaLockedLocked
Judge Samuel GranataLockedLocked
Judge Steen Wadskov-HansenLockedLocked

At the UPC: Abbott Group (67 cases)·Shenzhen SiSensing Co., Ltd (4 cases)

Start 14-day free trialAlready a user? Sign in
Related cases
All proceedings on this patent

This dispute contains 4 other proceedings

UPC CFI 3601/2026·UPC CoA 162/2026·UPC CFI 133/2024·UPC APP 39459/2024

4 other defendants litigating the same or a related patent

UPC CFI 865/2026·UPC CFI 830/2025·CC 14848/2024·UPC CFI 430/2023

Start a free trial to see how each one ended.

More cases: Milan LD·2026

Decisions
  • 2026-09-07
    Provisional measuresPublic

    Summary: Milan Local Division order (7 Sep 2026, R. 206 RoP) on Abbott Diabetes Care Inc.'s application for provisional measures against Shenzhen SiSensing Co., Ltd, SiBionics GmbH, Sibio Technology Limited, Sibio PTE Ltd. and their EU authorised representative Shanghai International Holding Corp. GmbH concerning EP 3 960 072 B1 (compact on-body physiological monitoring devices): the GS3-R continuous glucose monitoring system is held, with sufficient certainty, to infringe the patent, validity is not clearly in doubt, the application was filed without undue delay (about six weeks after the launch notices) and the balance of interests (price erosion in tender- and insurance-driven markets) favours the applicant; a provisional injunction is granted for all eighteen Contracting Member States where the patent is in force, with an information order, capped penalty payments, an interim costs award of EUR 120,000 (30% of the EUR 400,000 ceiling, reduced for the respondents' advance launch notice), immediate enforceability and a 31-day deadline to start proceedings on the merits; the customs-goods declaration is inadmissible, delivery-up is left to the merits and the specific request against the authorised representative is unnecessary. Headnote on the admissibility of new non-infringement arguments raised in the last written submission in PI proceedings.

    Show the legal issues (6)
    • provisional measures Art. 62 UPCA / R. 206-211 RoP: sufficient certainty of infringement, validity, urgency (no undue delay, R. 211.4), balance of interests
    • admissibility of new claim-construction and non-infringement arguments in the last written submission in PI proceedings (headnote)
    • EU authorised representative under Art. 11 MDR as infringer (Philips v Belkin, UPC_CoA_534/2024)
    • price erosion in tender- and reimbursement-driven CGM markets (UPC_CoA_382/2024)
    • interim award of costs at 30% of the ceiling (UPC_CoA_19/2026)
    • UPC-wide relief justified by regulatory and commercial preparations
Documents
Show all 109 documents
Document titleDatePublic
Case closed2026-09-07Not public
Publication of order2026-09-07Not public
Final Order2026-09-07Public
Decision2026-09-07Not public
Final Order2026-09-07Not public
Hearing recording reference document2026-07-14Not public
Communication2026-07-09Not public
Receipt2026-07-09Not public
Cover sheet2026-07-09Not public
Document2026-07-09Not public
Accepted arguments
What the court agreed with — by party.

  • The GS3-R System infringes claim 1 of EP 3 960 072 with sufficient certainty, and each respondent, including the EU authorised representative, is an infringer

    ClaimantLegal basis: Art. 25, 62, 63 UPCA; R. 211.2 RoP; Philips v Belkin

  • No undue delay: about six weeks between the launch notices and the application is reasonable

    ClaimantLegal basis: R. 211.4 RoP

  • The balance of interests favours the applicant because of hard-to-reverse price erosion in tender- and insurance-driven markets and uncertainty of recovering damages from a China-based group

    ClaimantLegal basis: Art. 62(2) UPCA, R. 211.3 RoP; UPC_CoA_382/2024, UPC_CoA_540/2024
Rejected arguments
What the court did not agree with — and why.

  • The patent is invalid (sufficiency, added matter, inventive step) and the GS3-R does not infringe, including the new argument on feature 1.6

    RespondentLegal basis: Art. 65 UPCA; Art. 54, 56, 83, 123(2) EPC

  • Declaration that the products are goods suspected of infringing an IP right (Reg. 608/2013), delivery-up, and a specific order against the authorised representative

    ClaimantLegal basis: Art. 2(7) Regulation (EU) No 608/2013; R. 211 RoP