UPClytics
ENDE
Sign inStart trial
View all cases

UPC CoA 884/2025

Sep 24, 2025·EP3831283 · ANALYTE SENSOR DEVICES, CONNECTIONS, AND METHODS

Follow
Case details
Status
Case Closed (Patent upheld as granted)
Action
Appeal
Category
Main appeal
Parties
Claimants
Representatives
Respondents
Representatives
Division
Court of Appeal
Judges
Technology
  • Instruments
    Medical technology
Language
English
First decided
Feb 27, 2026
Last decision
Aug 14, 2026
How this compares
How long the court takes to reach a first decision.
Median days to first decision
All UPC124
Judge Rian KaldenLocked
Judge Ingeborg SimonssonLocked
Judge Patricia RombachLocked
Judge Marc van der BurgLocked
Judge Patrik RydmanLocked

At the UPC: Sibio Technology Limited (15 cases)·Abbott Group (67 cases)

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

This dispute contains 9 other proceedings

UPC CFI 781/2025·UPC CFI 780/2025·UPC CFI 230/2025·UPC CFI 491/2024·UPC CoA 388/2024 and 4 more

4 other defendants litigating the same or a related patent

UPC CFI 943/2026·UPC CFI 1613/2025·UPC CoA 899/2025·UPC CFI 624/2025

Start a free trial to see how each one ended.

More cases: Court of Appeal·2025

Decisions
  • 2026-08-14
    AppealPublic

    Summary: Court of Appeal dismissed Sibio's appeal against the Paris Central Division's decision in the revocation action. Both the added-matter attack (intermediate generalisation) and the inventive-step attack failed, so Sibio's request for revocation of EP 3 831 283 is dismissed and the patent stands. Sibio bears Abbott's costs.

    Show the legal issues (3)
    • added matter
    • intermediate generalisation
    • inventive step
  • 2026-02-27
    Public

    Summary: The Court of Appeal (judge-rapporteur Rian Kalden, Panel 2) rejected Sibio Technology Limited's request for further exchanges of written pleadings (R. 36 RoP) in the appeal against the Paris Central Division's decision dismissing the revocation action concerning EP 3 831 283 and maintaining the patent as granted. Abbott's auxiliary requests, already submitted and admitted at first instance, are part of the appeal proceedings without requiring re-filing. The written procedure is closed and the oral phase opened.

    Show the legal issues (4)
    • Request for further written pleadings under R. 36 RoP
    • Admissibility of auxiliary requests on appeal (R. 222.1 and 222.2 RoP)
    • Right to be heard vs. efficiency of proceedings
    • Cross-appeal vs. auxiliary requests by respondent
Documents
Show all 67 documents
Document titleDatePublic
Case closed2026-08-14Not public
Publication of decision2026-08-14Not public
Decision2026-08-14Not public
Decision2026-08-14Public
Communication2026-08-14Not public
Deliberation opened2026-06-22Not public
Oral procedure closed2026-06-22Not public
Hearing recording reference document2026-06-22Not public
Order2026-06-17Not public
Order2026-06-17Public
Accepted arguments
What the court agreed with — by party.

  • No inextricable link between the omitted feature and the claimed features, so no unallowable intermediate generalisation.

    RespondentLegal basis: Art. 123(2) EPC / added matter
Rejected arguments
What the court did not agree with — and why.

  • The claim contains added matter by intermediate generalisation.

    ClaimantLegal basis: Art. 123(2) EPC

  • The claimed subject-matter lacks inventive step in combination with US'440.

    ClaimantLegal basis: Art. 56 EPC