UPClytics
ENDE
Sign inStart trial
View all cases

UPC CFI 231/2024

May 30, 2024·EP3831283 · ANALYTE SENSOR DEVICES, CONNECTIONS, AND METHODS

Follow
Case details
Status
Case Closed (Patent upheld as granted)
Action
Revocation
Category
Main revocation action
Parties
Claimants
Representatives
Respondents
Representatives
Division
Paris CD
Judges
Technology
  • Instruments
    Medical technology
Language
English
First decided
Jul 21, 2025
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.
Patent revokedMedian days to first decision
All UPC37% (34/91)124
Paris CDLockedLocked
Judge Paolo CatallozziLockedLocked
Judge Tatyana ZhilovaLockedLocked
Judge Renaud FulconisLockedLocked

At the UPC: Sibio Technology Limited (15 cases)·Abbott Group (67 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: Paris CD·2024

Decisions
  • 2025-07-21
    Revocation ActionPublic

    Summary: 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.

    Show the legal issues (5)
    • Revocation action - novelty and inventive step as separate grounds
    • Grounds for revocation of dependent claims
    • Late-filed arguments
    • Rule 75(3) RoP interaction with parallel proceedings
    • CGM sensor patent validity
Documents
Show all 149 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
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.