UPClytics
ENDE
Sign inStart trial
View all cases

UPC CFI 233/2023

Jul 7, 2023·EP3797685 · SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR DISPLAY DEVICE AND SENSOR ELECTRONICS UNIT COMMUNICATION

Action number: ACT 547520/2023

Follow
Case details
Status
Case Closed (No infringement)
Action
Infringement
Category
Main infringement action
Parties
Respondents
Representatives
Division
Munich LD
Judges
Technology
  • Electrical engineering
    Digital communication
  • Instruments
    Medical technology
Language
English
First decided
Jul 31, 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.
Infringement foundMedian days to first decision
All UPC53% (62/117)124
Munich LDLockedLocked
Judge Matthias ZigannLockedLocked
Judge Tobias PichlmaierLockedLocked
Judge Tatyana ZhilovaLockedLocked
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: Munich LD·2023

Decisions
  • —
    revocation counterclaim

    Summary: 1. EP 3 797 685 B1 is entirely revoked with effect in the territories of the Contracting Member States for which the European Patent had effect at the time of the counterclaim for revocation, namely [17 states]. 2. The auxiliary requests are dismissed. ... 4. All infringement claims are dismissed.

Documents
Show all 522 documents
Document titleDatePublic
workflow closed2025-07-22Public
workflow closed2025-07-22Not public
workflow closed2025-07-22Public
workflow closed2025-07-22Not public
workflow closed2025-07-22Public
workflow closed2025-07-22Not public
Outcome of the Order2025-04-17Not public
workflow closed2025-04-17Public
Consent2025-01-16Not public
Comment on withdrawal2025-01-14Not public
Coverage: Partial.Reasoning extracted with partial coverage — some sections may be incomplete.
Plain-English summary

DexCom Inc. brought an infringement action against multiple Abbott entities before the Munich Local Division concerning EP 3 797 685 (a CGM system patent). Abbott counterclaimed for revocation and succeeded: the court found the patent invalid for lack of novelty/inventive step both as granted and in DexCom's two auxiliary request forms, and revoked it entirely. DexCom's failure to advance specific arguments distinguishing the dependent claims was noted as a further reason those claims fell. All infringement claims were dismissed and DexCom was ordered to bear all costs.

Accepted arguments
What the court agreed with — by party.

  • Patent EP 3 797 685 invalid as granted and in all auxiliary request forms

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

    Note: Munich LD upheld Abbott's counterclaim for revocation, finding the CGM patent invalid for lack of novelty/inventive step in all claim versions.

  • Dependent claims are invalid for same reasons as claim 1 where claimant provides no specific arguments distinguishing dependent claims

    RespondentLegal basis: Art. 138(1) EPC

    Note: Claimant merely asserted dependent claims contain claim 1 features and are novel/inventive for the same reasons; no specific arguments advanced; court held dependent claims also invalid.

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

  • EP 3 797 685 as granted is valid

    ClaimantLegal basis: Art. 54/56 EPC

    Reason: Patent found invalid for lack of novelty/inventive step as granted.

  • Auxiliary requests 1 and 2 are valid

    ClaimantLegal basis: Art. 54/56 EPC

    Reason: Both auxiliary requests also found invalid; dismissed.

Key legal principles
Doctrines and rules cited in the reasoning.
Patent revoked in entirety where invalid as granted and in all auxiliary request formsClaimant must provide specific arguments for each dependent claim; reliance on claim 1 reasoning without more is insufficientInvalidity defeats infringement action — all infringement claims dismissed

Browse other cases on this principle.