UPClytics
View all cases

UPC CFI 130/2024

Mar 20, 2024·EP2713879 · ANALYTE SENSOR DEVICES, CONNECTIONS, AND METHODS

Action number: ACT 14944/2024

Case details
Status
Case Closed
Action
Provisional measures
Category
Provisional measures
Parties
Claimants
Representatives
Respondents
Representatives
Division
The Hague LD
Technology
  • Instruments
    Medical technology
Language
English
First decided
Jun 19, 2024
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
The Hague LDLockedLocked
Judge Edger BrinkmanLockedLocked
Judge Margot KokkeLockedLocked
Judge Petri RinkinenLockedLocked

At the UPC: Abbott Group (67 cases)·Sibio Technology Limited (15 cases)

Decisions
  • 2024-06-19
    Application 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
Documents
Document titleDatePublic
Acknowledgement-of-change-of-a-representative2025-02-12Not public
Application-RoP293-Receipt2025-02-12Not public
Formal-checks_Notification-of-positive-outcome2025-02-12Not public
Acknowledgement-of-change-of-a-representative2025-02-11Not public
Application-RoP293-Receipt2025-02-11Not public
Formal-checks_Notification-of-positive-outcome2025-02-11Not public
Acknowledgement-of-change-of-a-representative2025-02-11Not public
Application-RoP293-Receipt2025-02-11Not public
Formal-checks_Notification-of-positive-outcome2025-02-11Not public
Application-RoP2932025-02-10Not public
Change a Representative2025-02-10Not public
Application-RoP2932025-02-10Not public
Change a Representative2025-02-10Not public
Application-RoP2932025-02-10Not public
Change a Representative2025-02-10Not public
Headnote-and-Keywords2024-06-19Not public
Measures_DecisionOutcome_Notification.pdf2024-06-19Not public
order on preliminary measures2024-06-19Public
ORAL_HEARING_REFERENCING_14944/2024/OH/HAG-LOC/UPC202405229am2024-05-24Not public
ORAL_HEARING_REFERENCING_14944/2024/OH/HAG-LOC/UPC202405229am2024-05-24Not public
summons2024-05-15Not public
Exhibit S 52024-05-15Not public
Formal response to the Order of the Court2024-05-15Not public
Formal response to the Order of the Court2024-05-15Not public
Exhibit S 42024-05-15Not public
Exhibit S 32024-05-15Not public
Exhibit S 32024-05-15Not public
Formal response to the Order of the Court2024-05-15Not public
Formal response to the Order of the Court2024-05-15Not public
Exhibit S 42024-05-15Not public
Exhibit S 52024-05-15Not public
Acknowledgement-of-lodging2024-05-15Not public
Acknowledgement-of-lodging2024-05-15Not public
Exhibit S 52024-05-15Not public
Exhibit S 42024-05-15Not public
Exhibit S 32024-05-15Not public
Rejoinder to Application for Provisional Measures2024-05-15Not public
Exhibit S 42024-05-15Not public
Exhibit S 52024-05-15Not public
Exhibit S 32024-05-15Not public
Rejoinder to Application for Provisional Measures2024-05-15Not public
Summons oral hearing 22 May 20242024-05-15Public
Template-Order2024-05-15Not public
Annex F32024-05-08Not public
Annex F22024-05-08Not public
Annex F42024-05-08Not public
Annex F12024-05-08Not public
Annex F52024-05-08Not public
Annex F62024-05-08Not public
Reply Abbott EP 879 proceedings2024-05-08Not public
Exhibit S 22024-04-23Not public
Formal response to the Order of the Court2024-04-23Not public
Exhibit S 22024-04-23Not public
Exhibit S 12024-04-23Not public
Exhibit S 12024-04-23Not public
Exhibit S 22024-04-23Not public
Formal response to the Order of the Court2024-04-23Not public
Exhibit S 22024-04-23Not public
Order R. 209.1 time lodging objection2024-04-22Public
Acknowledgement of access to case2024-04-03Not public
Acknowledgement of access to case2024-04-03Not public
Notification Of Service2024-04-03Not public
Email to representative Defendants2024-04-03Not public
Notification Of Service2024-04-03Not public
Email to representative Defendants2024-04-03Not public
Letter for Service2024-04-03Not public
Letter for Service2024-04-03Not public
order to proceed with case and set date for response2024-04-02Public
Communication pursuant to Rule 2092024-03-29Not public
Preliminary order R.208.52024-03-27Not public
Panel-Appointment2024-03-26Not public
Application-For-Measures-Receipt2024-03-21Not public
Formal-checks_Notification-of-positive-outcome2024-03-21Not public
Application-For-Measures-Acknowledgement2024-03-20Not public
Annex C5 to PI Application2024-03-20Not public
Annex D2 to PI Application2024-03-20Not public
Annex A1 to PI Application2024-03-20Not public
Annex C3 to PI Application2024-03-20Not public
Annex C6 to PI Application2024-03-20Not public
Annex D1 to PI Application2024-03-20Not public
Annex E1 to PI Application2024-03-20Not public
PI Application2024-03-20Not public
Annex B2 to PI Application2024-03-20Not public
Annex C1 to PI Application2024-03-20Not public
Annex D3 to PI Application2024-03-20Not public
Annex C2 to PI Application2024-03-20Not public
Annex C4 to PI Application2024-03-20Not public
Annex B1 to PI Application2024-03-20Not public
Annex E2 to PI Application2024-03-20Not public
Coverage: Partial.Reasoning extracted with partial coverage — some sections may be incomplete.
Plain-English summary

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.

Accepted arguments
What the court agreed with — by party.
  • 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 RoP

    Note: 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 RoP

    Note: 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 / timeliness

    Note: 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.

Rejected arguments
What the court did not agree with — and why.
  • Application for information disclosure (sub (b) of the order sought)

    Claimant

    Reason: 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 RoP

    Reason: 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

    Respondent

    Reason: 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 RoP

    Reason: Court found no damages could be envisaged from enforcement given defendants were largely absent from the market; ex officio no security required.