UPC_CFI_587/2025

DISPLAYS FOR A MEDICAL DEVICE

Provisional measuresProvisional MeasuresThe Hague LDProvisional measuresCase Closed

Overview Decisions Reasoning Citations Documents Timeline

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 display Non-infringement finding renders it unnecessary to assess validity arguments Applicant 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)).