UPClytics
ENDE
Sign inStart trial
View all cases

UPC CFI 587/2025

Jun 27, 2025·EP3988471 Unitary patent · DISPLAYS FOR A MEDICAL DEVICE

Follow
Case details
Status
Case ClosedSet aside on appeal, Apr 17, 2026
Action
Provisional measures
Category
Provisional measures
Parties
Claimants
Representatives
Respondents
Representatives
Division
The Hague LD
Judges
Technology
  • Instruments
    Medical technology
  • Mechanical engineering
    Handling
Language
English
First decided
Oct 22, 2025
EPO Opposition
Appealed
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.
Preliminary injunction grantedMedian days to first decision
All UPC54% (38/70)124
The Hague LDLockedLocked
Judge Edger BrinkmanLockedLocked
Judge Margot KokkeLockedLocked
Judge Camille LignièresLockedLocked
Judge Alain DumontLockedLocked

At the UPC: Abbott Group (67 cases)·Sinocare Inc. (8 cases)

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

This dispute contains 3 other proceedings

UPC CFI 1743/2026·UPC CoA 901/2025·UPC APP 33807/2025

4 other defendants litigating the same or a related patent

CC 20188/2024·CC 13509/2024·UPC CFI 425/2023·UPC CFI 424/2023

Start a free trial to see how each one ended.

More cases: The Hague LD·2025

Decisions
  • 2025-10-22
    Application for provisional measuresPublic

    Summary: The Hague Local Division dismissed Abbott Diabetes Care's application for provisional measures against Sinocare and A.Menarini Diagnostics concerning EP 3 988 471, finding that the GlucoMen iCan device does not infringe claim 1 because event data icons are displayed in a separate panel rather than within the timeline graph.

    Show the legal issues (3)
    • Non-infringement of CGM display claim
    • Claim construction of timeline graph / event data icons
    • Preliminary injunction denied
Documents
Show all 357 documents
Document titleDatePublic
Communication2025-11-14Not public
Communication2025-11-05Not public
Case closed2025-10-23Not public
Decision2025-10-22Not public
Final Order2025-10-22Public
Oral procedure closed2025-10-14Not public
ORAL_HEARING_REFERENCING_32414_2025_OH_HAG_LOC_UPC2025090309am2025-09-10Not public
ORAL_HEARING_REFERENCING_32414_2025_OH_HAG_LOC_UPC2025090309am2025-09-10Not public
Summon-Oral-Hearing2025-08-31Not public
Annex F22025-08-25Not public
Plain-English summary

Abbott Diabetes Care's PI application against Sinocare and A. Menarini Diagnostics concerning EP 3 988 471 (displays for a medical device, FreeStyle Libre UI) was dismissed by The Hague Local Division because the GlucoMen iCan app presents event data icons in a separate panel below the trend graph rather than within the timeline graph as required by claim feature 1.13(c). Abbott was ordered to pay EUR 400,000 in interim costs to the defendants.

Accepted arguments
What the court agreed with — by party.

  • GlucoMen iCan does not infringe claim 1 of EP 3 988 471: event data icons are displayed in a separate panel below the trend graph, not within the timeline graph

    Respondent

    Note: Court agreed that the iCan CGM App displays two distinct panels — the trend graph and a separate events panel — so event icons are not 'included in the timeline graph' as required by feature 1.13(c).

  • Applicant who fails in PI proceedings may be ordered to pay an interim award of costs to the prevailing defendants

    RespondentLegal basis: R. 211.1(d) RoP

    Note: Court confirmed that the applicant in failed PI proceedings can be ordered to pay an interim cost award; the ceiling of EUR 400,000 (case value EUR 4,000,000) was ordered.

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

  • GlucoMen iCan infringes claim 1 (feature 1.13(c)) because the event icons appear on the same screen as the timeline graph

    Claimant

    Reason: Court found that appearing on the same screen does not mean the icons are 'within' or 'included in' the timeline graph; the two-panel display architecture means icons are outside the timeline graph, so claim 1 is not infringed.

Key legal principles
Doctrines and rules cited in the reasoning.
Purposive claim construction of display features: elements appearing on the same screen are not necessarily 'within' a specific sub-region of the displayNon-infringement finding renders it unnecessary to assess validity argumentsApplicant in failed PI proceedings may be ordered to pay interim cost award (R. 211.1(d) RoP)

Browse other cases on this principle.

Claim construction notes

The central claim construction dispute concerned feature 1.13(c) of EP 3 988 471: whether 'event data icons included in the timeline graph' requires the icons to be physically within the trend graph display area, or merely on the same screen. The Hague court held that the claim language requires the icons to be within the timeline graph area itself; a separate panel below the graph does not satisfy this feature. The same construction applied to the parallel method claim 14 (feature 14.10(c)).