UPClytics
EnglishDeutsch
Sign inSign up
View all cases

UPC CFI 231/2024

May 30, 2024·EP3831283 +1 more: ANALYTE SENSOR DEVICES, CONNECTIONS, AND METHODS

Case details
Status
Case Closed
Action
Revocation
Category
Main Revocation Action
Parties
Claimants
Reps: Thomas Gniadek (Simmons & Simmons); Fritz Lahtz; Oscar Lamme; Florian Laus; Diptanil Debbarma
Respondents
Reps: Wim Maas (Taylor Wessing); François Pochart (August Debouzy); Mehdi Mahammedi-Bouzina (August Debouzy)
Division
Paris CD
Judges
Technology
Medical Devices · CGM · Pharmaceutical & Medical
Language
English
First decided
Jul 21, 2025
Claims
At issueall
Maintainedall
Notes: Paris Central Division dismissed revocation action against EP3831283; all revocation grounds (lack of novelty and inventive step) failed and patent maintained as granted.
Decisions
  • 2025-07-21
    Patent maintainedRevocation meritsRevocation Action

    Decision of the Paris Central Division dismissing the revocation action by Sibio Technology Limited against Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. concerning EP 3 831 283 B1 (glucose monitoring device / CGM sensor). All grounds for revocation (lack of novelty and inventive step) failed. The patent is maintained as granted. Abbott (defendant/patentee) awarded costs. Key headnotes: novelty and inventive step are separate grounds and cannot be combined against the same prior art; grounds for revocation of dependent claims must be stated from the outset; Rule 75(3) RoP does not apply when a counterclaim for revocation in a subsequent infringement action is filed after the oral hearing in an earlier revocation action.

    Legal issues:Revocation action - novelty and inventive step as separate groundsGrounds for revocation of dependent claimsLate-filed argumentsRule 75(3) RoP interaction with parallel proceedingsCGM sensor patent validity
Documents
Document titleDatePublic
DecisionOutcome2025-07-21Not public
final decision2025-07-21Public
Hearing Reference2025-06-05Not public
Hearing Reference2025-06-05Not public
Outcome of the Order2025-05-28Not public
procedural order2025-05-28Public
Receipt2025-05-05Not public
Application pursuant to Rule 92025-05-02Not public
Order allowing for comments2025-05-02Not public
Outcome of the Order2025-04-14Not public
procedural order2025-04-14Public
Template-Order2025-04-14Not public
Interim-Procedure-Closure2025-04-14Not public
Summon-Oral-Hearing2025-04-14Not public
procedural order2025-04-14Public
Hearing-Dates2025-04-14Not public
procedural order2025-04-14Public
procedural order2025-04-13Not public
Hearing Reference2025-04-10Not public
Hearing Reference2025-04-10Not public
Fix-Interim-Conference-Date2025-04-10Not public
Interim-Conference-Decision2025-04-10Not public
Outcome of the Order2025-04-08Not public
procedural order2025-04-08Public
Receipt2025-04-08Not public
Comments of Abbott in advance of Interim Conference2025-04-07Not public
Written-Procedure-Closure2025-04-02Not public
Acknowledgement-of-lodging2025-03-17Not public
Exhibit S 102025-03-17Not public
Pleading2025-03-17Not public
Exhibit S 132025-03-17Not public
Exhibit S 142025-03-17Not public
Exhibit S 122025-03-17Not public
Exhibit S 112025-03-17Not public
Annex TW012025-03-05Not public
Comment2025-03-05Not public
Hearing-Dates2025-02-27Not public
procedural order2025-02-27Public
Comments pursuant to RoP2642025-02-26Not public
Comments pursuant RoP2642025-02-26Not public
procedural order2025-02-19Not public
procedural order2025-02-19Not public
Hearing-Dates2025-02-19Not public
Acknowledgement-of-change-of-a-representative2025-02-18Not public
Application-RoP293-Receipt2025-02-18Not public
Formal-checks_Notification-of-positive-outcome2025-02-18Not public
Application-RoP2932025-02-18Not public
Application to Change a Representative2025-02-18Not public
Receipt2025-02-17Not public
Application2025-02-17Not public
Acknowledgement-of-lodging2025-01-17Not public
Formal-checks_Notification-of-positive-outcome2025-01-17Not public
Acknowledgement-of-lodging2025-01-16Not public
Annex TW242025-01-16Not public
Annex TW282025-01-16Not public
Annex TW302025-01-16Not public
Annex TW232025-01-16Not public
Annex TW262025-01-16Not public
Annex TW312025-01-16Not public
EP283 Revocation Rejoinder2025-01-16Not public
Annex TW272025-01-16Not public
Annex TW292025-01-16Not public
Annex TW252025-01-16Not public
Annex TW322025-01-16Not public
Annex TW072025-01-16Not public
Annex TW052025-01-16Not public
Annex TW062025-01-16Not public
Application to amend the patent EP 2832025-01-16Not public
Annex TW042025-01-16Not public
Annex TW032025-01-16Not public
Annex TW022025-01-16Not public
Annex TW012025-01-16Not public
Outcome of the Order2024-12-04Not public
Procedural order2024-12-04Public
procedural order2024-12-04Not public
Acknowledgement-of-lodging2024-12-02Not public
Exhibit D 82024-12-02Not public
Exhibit D 112024-12-02Not public
Exhibit D 102024-12-02Not public
Pleading2024-12-02Not public
Exhibit D 92024-12-02Not public
Exhibit D 82024-12-02Not public
Receipt2024-11-28Not public
Request for an extension2024-11-28Not public
Formal-checks_Notification-of-positive-outcome2024-10-02Not public
Acknowledgement-of-lodging2024-10-02Not public
Annex TW202024-10-02Not public
Annex TW022024-10-02Not public
Annex TW182024-10-02Not public
Annex TW142024-10-02Not public
Annex TW212024-10-02Not public
Annex TW042024-10-02Not public
Annex TW062024-10-02Not public
Annex TW032024-10-02Not public
Annex TW012024-10-02Not public
Annex TW192024-10-02Not public
Annex TW132024-10-02Not public
Annex TW112024-10-02Not public
Annex TW172024-10-02Not public
Annex TW092024-10-02Not public
Defence2024-10-02Not public
Annex TW152024-10-02Not public
Annex TW102024-10-02Not public
Annex TW052024-10-02Not public
Annex TW072024-10-02Not public
Annex TW082024-10-02Not public
Annex TW162024-10-02Not public
Annex TW222024-10-02Not public
Annex TW122024-10-02Not public
Panel-Appointment2024-08-08Not public
Acknowledgement of access to case2024-08-06Not public
Notification Of Service2024-08-05Not public
AR THC - Service to Abbott Diabetes Care Inc - 02.08.20242024-08-05Not public
Letter for Service2024-06-26Not public
Panel-Appointment2024-06-26Not public
epoUploadDocumentsWorkflow2024-06-18Not public
Document from EPO2024-06-18Not public
EPO-Request-for-case-pending2024-06-14Not public
Acknowledgement-of-lodging2024-06-14Not public
Formal-checks_Notification-of-positive-outcome2024-06-14Not public
Formal response to the request for amendments2024-06-14Not public
Exhibit S 92024-06-14Not public
Exhibit S 12024-06-14Not public
Exhibit S 22024-06-14Not public
Exhibit S 82024-06-14Not public
Exhibit D 22024-06-14Not public
Exhibit D 62024-06-14Not public
Statement for Revocation (amended version)2024-06-14Not public
Exhibit S 42024-06-14Not public
Exhibit S 32024-06-14Not public
Exhibit D 32024-06-14Not public
Exhibit D 52024-06-14Not public
Exhibit S 52024-06-14Not public
Exhibit D 12024-06-14Not public
Exhibit D 42024-06-14Not public
Exhibit S 72024-06-14Not public
Exhibit D 72024-06-14Not public
Formal-checks_Request-for-correction2024-05-21Not public
Exhibit S 52024-05-15Not public
Exhibit S 92024-05-15Not public
Bundle of Exhibits S 6 (Part 1 of 2)2024-05-15Not public
Exhibit S 32024-05-15Not public
Exhibit S 22024-05-15Not public
Bundle of Exhibits S 6 (Part 2 of 2)2024-05-15Not public
Statement for Revocation2024-05-15Not public
Exhibit S 42024-05-15Not public
Exhibit S 82024-05-15Not public
Exhibit S 12024-05-15Not public
Exhibit S 72024-05-15Not public
Plain-English summary

Sibio Technology Limited (Hong Kong) filed a revocation action against Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. (US) seeking to revoke EP 3 831 283 B1, a patent for continuous glucose monitoring sensor devices and connections. The Paris Central Division dismissed the revocation action in full, maintaining the patent as granted: Sibio's novelty attack over WO'896 was inadmissible for failure to provide a separate novelty analysis, and the inventive step attack combining WO'896 and US'440 failed because US'440 provides no pointer to the dramatic design change needed to arrive at the claimed recess-and-opening configuration.

Accepted arguments
What the court agreed with — by party.

  • Patent EP 3 831 283 B1 is novel over WO'896 (closest prior art for inventive step) because WO'896 does not disclose the recess in a bottom exterior surface with the connect support received through a distal-facing opening

    RespondentLegal basis: Art. 54 EPC

    Note: Court found that WO'896 does not anticipate the distinguishing features 1.4 and 1.5 of claim 1.

  • Claim 1 involves an inventive step: US'440 provides no pointer to motivate or enable the dramatic design change needed to arrive at the claimed invention from WO'896

    RespondentLegal basis: Art. 56 EPC; problem-solution approach

    Note: Court applied problem-solution: regardless of how the technical problem is formulated, US'440 would not motivate the skilled person to modify WO'896 in the required manner because it does not disclose the relevant distinguishing features and no pointer exists for the dramatic design change required.

  • Sibio's second line of inventive step argumentation (re-mapping top/base of housing) is inadmissible as late-filed

    RespondentLegal basis: R. 75 RoP

    Note: Court upheld Abbott's admissibility objection to the second line of argumentation first raised in Sibio's Reply.

  • Sibio's novelty challenge over WO'896 is inadmissible: merely referencing a document for novelty/inventive step in general terms without a detailed novelty analysis is insufficient

    RespondentLegal basis: Art. 65 UPCA; R. 206 RoP

    Note: Court held that lack of novelty and lack of inventive step are separate grounds that cannot be absorbed by each other; a detailed analysis only for inventive step does not establish that novelty is separately challenged.

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

  • Claim 1 of EP 3 831 283 B1 lacks novelty over WO'896

    ClaimantLegal basis: Art. 54 EPC; R. 206 RoP

    Reason: Admissibility: Sibio only provided a detailed analysis with respect to inventive step over WO'896; merely indicating a document will be used for novelty and/or inventive step without specific novelty analysis is insufficient to establish a novelty challenge. Substantively also not established.

  • Claim 1 lacks inventive step starting from WO'896 combined with US'440

    ClaimantLegal basis: Art. 56 EPC

    Reason: US'440 provides no incentive for the skilled person to make the dramatic design change required; no pointer identified for arriving at the distinguishing features 1.4 and 1.5.

  • R. 75(3) RoP bars a new counterclaim for revocation concerning the same patent after an earlier revocation action

    RespondentLegal basis: R. 75(3) RoP; Preamble to RoP para. 4

    Reason: R. 75(3) RoP does not apply when a counterclaim for revocation in a subsequent infringement action before a Local Division is filed after the oral hearing in an earlier Central Division revocation action; flexibility and efficiency principle prevails.

Key legal principles
Doctrines and rules cited in the reasoning.
Lack of novelty and lack of inventive step are separate grounds for revocation and cannot be absorbed when asserted against the same prior artProviding a detailed analysis only for inventive step does not establish a separate novelty challengeGrounds for revocation of dependent claims must be stated from the outsetProblem-solution approach: prior art must provide a pointer to motivate the skilled person to make the required modificationR. 75(3) RoP does not apply to block a revocation counterclaim filed after the oral hearing in an earlier Central Division revocation action (flexibility principle)

Browse other cases on this principle.

Prior art relied on
References cited and the role they played.
  • WO'896 (glucose monitoring prior art)Obviousness combination
  • US'440 (glucose sensor assembly prior art)Obviousness combination
Claim construction notes

Claim 1 of EP 3 831 283 B1 (analyte sensor for continuous glucose monitoring) was construed with attention to features 1.4 (recess in a bottom exterior surface) and 1.5 (connect support received through a distal-facing opening into the recess). The mapping proposed by Sibio in the alternative (treating the top of the housing as the base portion) was held unreasonable and inadmissible.