UPC CFI 395/2023

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

• 2024-12-11
  Public

  Summary: Decision on the merits from the Paris Local Division (UPC_CFI_395/2023) delivered on 11 December 2024 in DexCom's infringement action against Abbott entities concerning EP 3 831 282. The Court found the patent invalid in its entirety — neither as granted nor as amended by auxiliary requests 1, 2 or 3 — due to added subject-matter under Art. 138(1)(c) EPC. The infringement action was dismissed for lack of legal basis. DexCom was ordered to bear Abbott's costs, with the amount to be determined in separate proceedings.

  Show the legal issues (5)

  • Added matter (Art. 138(1)(c) EPC)
  • Auxiliary requests for patent amendment
  • Admissibility of new grounds for revocation in rejoinder (R. 9.2 RoP)
  • Claim interpretation (whole-content approach)
  • Inventive step (Art. 56 EPC)
• 2024-11-25
  Public

  Summary: Procedural order from the Paris Local Division dated 25 November 2024 on DexCom's application (under R. 334(e) and R. 336 RoP) requesting the court to allow post-hearing submissions regarding a Munich Regional Court decision of 6 November 2024 on EP 2 939 158 (parent patent of EP 3 831 282 in suit). The court had closed the oral hearing on 30 October 2024. DexCom argued the Munich decision finding infringement by Abbott of the parent patent's claim 1 was relevant. Abbott argued the application was inadmissible. The order addresses admissibility of supplemental submissions after closure of hearing under Chapter 8 RoP case management provisions.

  Show the legal issues (3)

  • Post-hearing supplemental submissions under R. 334(e) and R. 336 RoP
  • Relevance of parallel national court decisions
  • Case management after closure of oral hearing
• 2024-02-12
  Public

  Summary: Procedural order from the Paris Local Division granting an extension and alignment of deadlines for filing the Statement of Defence in an infringement action by DexCom against 14 Abbott group defendants. The parties had orally agreed on a filing date at a case management meeting, which the Judge-Rapporteur considered reasonable. The order also confirmed service completion details for each defendant.

  Show the legal issues (3)

  • Extension of time limits (R. 23 RoP)
  • Alignment of deadlines for multiple defendants
  • Service of Statement of Claim on multiple defendants