UPClytics
ENDE
Sign inStart trial
View all cases

UPC CFI 624/2025

Jul 4, 2025·EP4344633 Unitary patent · ANALYTE SENSOR METHODS

Follow
Case details
Status
Case Closed
Action
Provisional measures
Category
Provisional measures
Parties
Claimants
Representatives
Respondents
Representatives
Division
The Hague LD
Judges
Technology
  • Instruments
    Medical technology
Language
English
First decided
Oct 17, 2025
EPO Opposition
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 4 other proceedings

UPC CFI 943/2026·UPC CFI 1613/2025·UPC CoA 899/2025·UPC APP 33807/2025

10 other defendants litigating the same or a related patent

UPC CoA 884/2025·UPC CFI 781/2025·UPC CFI 780/2025·UPC CFI 230/2025·UPC CFI 491/2024 and 5 more

Start a free trial to see how each one ended.

More cases: The Hague LD·2025

Decisions
  • 2025-10-17
    Application for provisional measuresPublic

    Summary: The Hague Local Division granted Abbott Diabetes Care a preliminary injunction against Sinocare and A.Menarini Diagnostics regarding infringement of continuous glucose monitoring patent EP 4 344 633 (FreeStyle Libre technology), including information orders and delivery-up of infringing GlucoMen iCan products.

    Show the legal issues (3)
    • Preliminary injunction (continuous glucose monitoring)
    • Claim construction of timeline graph feature
    • Proportionality of measures
Documents
Show all 191 documents
Document titleDatePublic
Receipt2026-03-30Not public
Cover sheet2026-03-30Not public
Application document Claimant2026-03-30Not public
Communication2025-11-14Not public
Communication2025-11-05Not public
Case closed2025-10-23Not public
Publication of order2025-10-17Not public
Decision2025-10-17Not public
Final Order2025-10-17Public
Oral procedure closed2025-10-14Not public
Coverage: Partial.Reasoning extracted with partial coverage — some sections may be incomplete.
Plain-English summary

Abbott Diabetes Care obtained a preliminary injunction from The Hague Local Division against Sinocare and A. Menarini Diagnostics prohibiting the GlucoMen iCan CGM system across all UPC territories for infringement of EP 4 344 633 (FreeStyle Libre analyte sensor technology). The court also ordered delivery-up of infringing products and disclosure of distribution channels, but rejected Abbott's request for a customs-goods declaration under EU Regulation 608/2013 as unavailable in PI proceedings, and limited the information order to distribution data rather than financial figures.

Accepted arguments
What the court agreed with — by party.

  • GlucoMen iCan infringes EP 4 344 633 covering continuous glucose monitoring sensor technology

    ClaimantLegal basis: Art. 62 UPCA; R. 211 RoP

    Note: The Hague Local Division found infringement sufficiently demonstrated for PI purposes and granted the injunction across all UPC member states.

  • Defendants should not be ordered to comply jointly and severally as independent companies

    Respondent

    Note: Court agreed that Sinocare and Menarini are independent companies and did not impose joint and several liability for the substantive injunction obligations.

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

  • Declaration that GlucoMen iCan is 'goods suspected of infringing an IP right' under EU Regulation 608/2013 should be granted as a provisional measure

    ClaimantLegal basis: Art. 2(7)(a) of Regulation (EU) No 608/2013

    Reason: Court held that such a declaration is not available as a provisional measure regardless of the merits.

  • Information order should include price, sales numbers, and cost data

    ClaimantLegal basis: R. 211 RoP

    Reason: Court found that financial data is only relevant for damages calculation which is premature at the PI stage; the information order was limited to distribution channels and product origins.

  • Information disclosure should be subject to confidentiality

    Respondent

    Reason: Court rejected confidentiality request given the limited scope of the ordered information disclosure.

Key legal principles
Doctrines and rules cited in the reasoning.
Declaration of 'goods suspected of infringing' under EU Customs Regulation 608/2013 is not available as a provisional measureInformation orders in PI proceedings are limited to distribution channels and origins; financial data (pricing, volumes) is premature as it relates to damagesIndependent co-defendants are not subject to joint and several liability for PI compliance orders

Browse other cases on this principle.