UPClytics
ENDE
Sign inStart trial
View all cases

UPC CFI 131/2024

Mar 20, 2024·EP3831283 · ANALYTE SENSOR DEVICES, CONNECTIONS, AND METHODS

Action number: ACT 14945/2024

Follow
Case details
Status
Case ClosedSet aside on appeal, Feb 14, 2025
Action
Provisional measures
Category
Provisional measures
Parties
Claimants
Representatives
Respondents
Representatives
Division
The Hague LD
Judges
Technology
  • Instruments
    Medical technology
Language
English
First decided
Jun 19, 2024
Appealed
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 Petri RinkinenLockedLocked
Judge Margot KokkeLockedLocked
Judge Renaud FulconisLockedLocked

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

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

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

Decisions
  • 2024-06-19
    Application for provisional measures

    Summary: Application for a preliminary injunction by Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. against Sibio Technology Limited and Umedwings Netherlands B.V. concerning EP 3 831 283 (wearable glucose monitoring device) was denied by The Hague Local Division. The court found it more likely than not that claim 1 of the patent would be held invalid for added matter (the claimed feature of a connector support being received through a distal-facing opening into a recess was not directly and unambiguously derivable from the application as filed). As a result, Abbott must bear defendants' costs. Value of the action set at EUR 4,000,000.

    Show the legal issues (3)
    • Preliminary injunction denied for likely invalidity on added matter (Art. 123(2) EPC)
    • Balance of probabilities standard for patent validity in PI proceedings
    • Added matter: connector support insertion direction
Documents
Show all 138 documents
Document titleDatePublic
Outcome of the Order2025-07-18Not public
sibio order2025-07-18Public
Outcome of the Order2025-07-18Not public
R. 262A Order2025-07-18Public
R. 262A Order2025-07-18Public
Comments pursuant to RoP2642025-06-27Not public
Comments pursuant to RoP2642025-06-27Not public
Comments pursuant to RoP2642025-06-27Not public
Comments pursuant to RoP2642025-06-27Not public
update on state of affairs2025-06-13Not public
Plain-English summary

Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. applied for provisional measures before The Hague Local Division against Sibio Technology Limited and Umedwings Netherlands B.V. concerning EP 3 831 283, a wearable glucose monitoring device patent. The court denied the preliminary injunction, finding on the balance of probabilities that claim 1 would more likely than not be held invalid for added matter, as the feature specifying the direction of coupling of the connector support through the distal-facing opening into the recess was not directly and unambiguously derivable from the application as filed.

Accepted arguments
What the court agreed with — by party.

  • Claim 1 more likely than not invalid for added matter: feature of connector support received through distal-facing opening into recess not directly and unambiguously derivable from application as filed

    RespondentLegal basis: Art. 123(2) EPC

    Note: The Hague Local Division found on balance of probabilities that the claimed feature specifying the direction of coupling (from below/distal side) of the connector support through the opening into the recess was not directly and unambiguously disclosed in the application as filed, as the cited embodiments worked in the reverse direction or required combination of separate passages without a pointer.

Rejected arguments
What the court did not agree with — and why.

  • Feature of connector support received through distal-facing opening into recess is supported by multiple passages and figures in the application as filed

    ClaimantLegal basis: Art. 123(2) EPC

    Reason: The court found that the cited passages and figures either showed a different embodiment requiring combination without a pointer, or showed the coupling direction working in the reverse manner to what claim 1 recites; no single passage/figure directly and unambiguously disclosed all features together in the claimed configuration.

  • Provisional reimbursement of costs ordered in favour of applicant

    ClaimantLegal basis: Art. 69 UPCA; R. 118.5 RoP

    Reason: Rejected: as applicant did not prevail, there was no basis for provisional cost reimbursement in its favour.

Key legal principles
Doctrines and rules cited in the reasoning.
added matter: claimed feature must be directly and unambiguously derivable from application as filedbalance of probabilities test for validity in PI proceedingscosts follow the event in PI proceedings even without main proceedingsall dependent claims fall with the same added-matter defect as independent claim

Browse other cases on this principle.

Prior art relied on
References cited and the role they played.
  • WO 2011/119896Distinguished
Claim construction notes

The critical feature under construction was 'a connector support received through a distal-facing opening into a recess' in the enclosure's bottom portion. The court found this feature characterises a specific coupling direction (from below/distal side), which Abbott itself relied upon to distinguish prior art WO 2011/119896, but which was not directly and unambiguously derivable from the application as filed. The embodiments cited by Abbott either showed reverse coupling or required impermissible combination of separate passages.