UPC Analytics
ENDE
Overview · Filed: Jul 4, 2025

UPC_CFI_624/2025

ANALYTE SENSOR METHODS

Provisional measuresProvisional MeasuresThe Hague LDProvisional measuresCase Closed
OverviewDecisionsReasoningCitationsDocumentsTimeline
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.