UPClytics
ENDE
Sign inStart trial
View all cases

UPC CFI 230/2023

Jul 7, 2023·EP3435866 · SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR DISPLAY DEVICE AND SENSOR ELECTRONICS UNIT COMMUNICATION

Follow
Case details
Status
Case Closed (No infringement)
Action
Infringement
Category
Main infringement action
Parties
Claimants
Representatives
Respondents
Representatives
Division
Paris LD
Judges
Technology
  • Instruments
    Medical technology
Language
English
First decided
Dec 19, 2023
Last decision
Jul 4, 2024
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.
Infringement foundMedian days to first decision
All UPC53% (62/117)124
Paris LDLockedLocked
Judge Camille LignièresLockedLocked
Judge Carine GilletLockedLocked
Judge Rute LopesLockedLocked
Judge Alain DumontLockedLocked

At the UPC: Dexcom Group (39 cases)·Abbott Group (67 cases)

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

This dispute contains 6 other proceedings

UPC CoA 569/2024·UPC APP 49196/2024·UPC APP 45331/2024·CC 586829/2023·CC 586960/2023 and 1 more

Start a free trial to see how each one ended.

More cases: Paris LD·2023

Decisions
  • 2024-07-04
    Public

    Summary: Decision on the merits by Paris Local Division (4 July 2024). EP 3 435 866 B1 (analyte monitoring / continuous glucose monitoring system) was entirely revoked for lack of inventive step; auxiliary requests 1 and 2 were also invalid (added subject-matter). DexCom's infringement action was dismissed in full. DexCom was ordered to bear costs. The court addressed jurisdiction on the revocation counterclaim, the carve-out under Art. 83 UPCA, claim interpretation, novelty and inventiveness.

    Show the legal issues (9)
    • Claim interpretation
    • Novelty
    • Inventive step (denied)
    • Added subject-matter
    • Auxiliary requests
    • UPC jurisdiction on revocation counterclaim
    • Art. 29-30 Brussels Ibis applicability
    • Carve-out (Art. 83 UPCA)
    • Costs
  • 2024-01-30
    Infringement ActionPublic

    Summary: The Paris Local Division panel, on review under Rule 333 RoP, partially upheld Abbott's application by increasing the upper limit of the penalty for breach of the confidentiality club from EUR 50,000 to EUR 250,000, to achieve consistency with a parallel confidentiality order issued by the Munich Local Division in related proceedings.

    Show the legal issues (3)
    • Rule 333 RoP: panel review of judge-rapporteur confidentiality order
    • Consistency between confidentiality orders in parallel UPC proceedings
    • Proportionality of penalty for breach of confidentiality club
  • 2024-01-24
    Infringement ActionPublic

    Summary: The Paris Local Division full panel issued a procedural order in the Dexcom v. Abbott infringement case, rejecting Abbott's request for leave to appeal the judge-rapporteur's confidentiality order of 19 December 2023, finding it was a case management order subject to Rule 333 RoP review rather than a directly appealable order.

    Show the legal issues (3)
    • Rule 220.2 RoP: leave to appeal case management orders
    • Distinction between appealable orders and orders reviewable under Rule 333 RoP
    • Confidentiality order appealability
  • 2023-12-19
    Infringement ActionPublic

    Summary: The Paris Local Division issued a procedural order in an infringement action brought by DexCom against multiple Abbott entities, granting Abbott's request to protect certain highly sensitive sales and revenue information contained in Abbott's statement of defence from public access.

    Show the legal issues (2)
    • Confidentiality order for sensitive commercial information in statement of defence
    • Protection of sales figures and revenues from public access
Documents
Show all 581 documents
Document titleDatePublic
Case Closure Formal Check2025-09-02Not public
withdrawal CoA 24-01-20252025-09-02Not public
Outcome of the Order2025-01-17Not public
Final order2025-01-17Public
Receipt2025-01-02Not public
Receipt2025-01-02Not public
2024 12 30 - Consent to Abbotts R.151 application withdrawal PDFA2024-12-30Not public
WITHDRAWAL OF APPLICATION FOR A DECISION ON COSTS PURSUANT TO RULE 1512024-12-30Not public
Headnote-and-Keywords2024-07-04Not public
Decision on the merits Dexcom1 546446 20232024-07-04Public
Plain-English summary

Dexcom sued multiple Abbott entities alleging infringement of EP 3435866 (a CGM sensor communication system) before the Paris Local Division; Abbott counterclaimed for revocation. The court found the patent lacked inventive step over the prior art, with both auxiliary requests 1 and 2 also invalid (the latter for added subject-matter). The court addressed an important jurisdictional principle: a claimant's Art. 83 UPCA carve-out limiting infringement claims cannot prevent the defendant from pursuing a full revocation counterclaim; all Dexcom's infringement claims were dismissed as a result.

Accepted arguments
What the court agreed with — by party.

  • EP 3435866 lacks inventive step over prior art

    RespondentLegal basis: Art. 138(1)(a) EPC; Art. 56 EPC; Art. 65(2) UPCA

    Note: Paris Local Division found main claim lacked inventive step; both auxiliary requests also invalid (auxiliary requests 1 and 2 had added subject-matter or also lacked inventive step).

  • UPC has jurisdiction over revocation counterclaim notwithstanding claimant's carve-out limiting infringement claims

    RespondentLegal basis: Art. 76(1) UPCA; Arts. 29-31 Brussels Ibis Regulation

    Note: Court held that the parties' right to define scope of dispute under Art. 76(1) UPCA cannot restrict defendant's challenge to patent validity in a counterclaim for revocation.

  • Auxiliary requests 1 and 2 introduce added subject-matter beyond the original application

    RespondentLegal basis: Art. 138(1)(c) EPC

    Note: Court found auxiliary request 2 extended patent subject-matter beyond the application as filed; auxiliary request 1 also found invalid.

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

  • EP 3435866 is novel and inventive; dependent claims 2–9 are independently valid

    ClaimantLegal basis: Art. 56 EPC

    Reason: Novelty was accepted for claim 1, but inventive step was denied for all claims; Dexcom failed to provide specific arguments defending dependent claims 2–9 individually.

  • Infringement of EP 3435866 by Abbott entities' continuous glucose monitoring devices

    ClaimantLegal basis: Art. 65(2) UPCA

    Reason: Infringement action dismissed in full as patent was entirely revoked.

  • Abbott's carve-out defence limits scope of revocation counterclaim to UPC-claimed territories

    ClaimantLegal basis: Art. 83 UPCA; Art. 76(1) UPCA

    Reason: Court held the carve-out principle governing claimant's infringement scope does not restrict defendant's revocation counterclaim; no legal text in UPC law expressly limits such counterclaims.

Key legal principles
Doctrines and rules cited in the reasoning.
Parties' right to define subject-matter of dispute (Art. 76(1) UPCA) does not restrict defendant's counterclaim for revocationBrussels Ibis Arts. 29-30 apply directly to the UPC without requiring Art. 71cDefendant's failure to provide specific arguments for dependent claims leaves them undefendedArt. 83 UPCA carve-out by claimant to exclude certain acts does not limit scope of revocation counterclaimClaim construction: skilled person applies technical meaning with aid of description, not merely philological reading

Browse other cases on this principle.

Claim construction notes

The Paris Local Division discussed principles of claim interpretation for EP 3435866 (analyte monitoring system for continuous glucose monitoring). The court applied purposive construction, finding that the scope of the dispute is governed by party submissions while holding that general principles of claim interpretation favour technical meaning over literal/philological reading.