UPC CFI 130/2024
Mar 20, 2024·EP2713879 · ANALYTE SENSOR DEVICES, CONNECTIONS, AND METHODS
Action number: ACT 14944/2024
- Case details
- StatusCase ClosedActionProvisional measuresCategoryProvisional measures
- Parties
- Claimants
- Abbott Diabetes Care Inc.Operating co.
Representatives- Wim Maas-Taylor Wessing
- Eelco Bergsma-Taylor Wessing
Respondents- Sibio Technology LimitedOperating co.
- Umedwings Netherlands B.V.Operating co.
Representatives- Thomas Gniadek-Simmons & Simmons
- Division
- The Hague LD
- Technology
- InstrumentsMedical technology
- Language
- English
- First decided
- Jun 19, 2024
| Preliminary injunction granted | Median days to first decision | |
|---|---|---|
| All UPC | 54% (38/70) | 124 |
| The Hague LD | Locked | Locked |
| Judge Edger Brinkman | Locked | Locked |
| Judge Margot Kokke | Locked | Locked |
| Judge Petri Rinkinen | Locked | Locked |
At the UPC: Abbott Group (67 cases)·Sibio Technology Limited (15 cases)
This dispute contains 9 other proceedings
UPC CoA 884/2025·UPC CFI 781/2025·UPC CFI 780/2025·UPC CFI 230/2025·UPC CFI 491/2024 and 4 more
4 other defendants litigating the same or a related patent
UPC CFI 943/2026·UPC CFI 1613/2025·UPC CoA 899/2025·UPC CFI 624/2025
Start a free trial to see how each one ended.
More cases: The Hague LD·2024
- 2024-06-19Application for provisional measures
Summary: The Local Division The Hague granted Abbott Diabetes Care a preliminary injunction against Sibio Technology and Umedwings for infringement of a patent relating to a continuous glucose monitoring device (GS1), finding all conditions under R.211 RoP met and the balance of interests in Abbott's favour, as defendants had left the relevant markets.
Show the legal issues (5)
- Provisional measures – all conditions met (R.211 RoP)
- Legitimate interest despite cease-and-desist (R.360 RoP)
- Urgency – delay assessment
- Balance of interests
- Continuous glucose monitoring device infringement
| Document title | Date | Public |
|---|---|---|
| Acknowledgement-of-change-of-a-representative | 2025-02-12 | Not public |
| Application-RoP293-Receipt | 2025-02-12 | Not public |
| Formal-checks_Notification-of-positive-outcome | 2025-02-12 | Not public |
| Acknowledgement-of-change-of-a-representative | 2025-02-11 | Not public |
| Application-RoP293-Receipt | 2025-02-11 | Not public |
| Formal-checks_Notification-of-positive-outcome | 2025-02-11 | Not public |
| Acknowledgement-of-change-of-a-representative | 2025-02-11 | Not public |
| Application-RoP293-Receipt | 2025-02-11 | Not public |
| Formal-checks_Notification-of-positive-outcome | 2025-02-11 | Not public |
| Application-RoP293 | 2025-02-10 | Not public |
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.
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 RoPNote: 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 RoPNote: 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 / timelinessNote: 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.
Application for information disclosure (sub (b) of the order sought)
ClaimantReason: 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 RoPReason: 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
RespondentReason: 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 RoPReason: Court found no damages could be envisaged from enforcement given defendants were largely absent from the market; ex officio no security required.
Browse other cases on this principle.