UPClytics
EnglishDeutsch
Sign inSign up
View all cases

UPC CoA 899/2025

Oct 31, 2025·EP4344633 +1 more: ANALYTE SENSOR METHODS

Case details
Status
Oral Phase
Action
Appeal
Category
Main Appeal
Parties
Claimants
Reps: Christian Dekoninck (Taylor Wessing)
Respondents
Reps: Tjibbe Douma (Bird & Bird (Netherlands) LLP); Edoardo Barbera (Bird & Bird Società tra Avvocati S.r.l.)
Division
Court of Appeal
Judges
Technology
Pharmaceutical & Medical
Language
English
First decided
Mar 30, 2026
Claims
At issue1, 15
Infringed1, 15
Notes: Infringement findings are on a 'more likely than not' basis for purposes of provisional measures only; not a final merits determination. Validity grounds (added matter, sufficiency, novelty, inventive step) were raised by Appellants but found not more likely than not to invalidate claims 1 and 15.
Decisions
  • 2026-03-30
    PI grantedAppeal decisionAppeal RoP220.1

    The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal and upheld the first-instance preliminary injunction prohibiting Sinocare Inc. and A. Menarini Diagnostics from manufacturing, marketing, placing on the market, using, supplying, or importing the GlucoMen iCan CGM product in the UPC territory. The Court found it more likely than not that claims 1 and 15 of EP 4 344 633 are infringed and not invalid. Appellants were ordered to pay an interim award of costs of EUR 200,000.

    Legal issues:Jurisdiction over Chinese defendant (Sinocare Inc.) based on Art. 71b(2) Brussels I Recast and Art. 7(2) BRWaiver of jurisdiction challenge on appeal for Appellant 2 (Art. 26(1) Brussels I Recast, R. 19.7 RoP)Claim construction of 'sensor assembly' as pre-assembled unit (feature 1.1)Claim construction of 'distal surface' of support (feature 1.4)Claim construction of seal 'shaped to enclose the contacts portion within the support' (feature 1.6)Infringement of claims 1 and 15 by GlucoMen iCanValidity — added matter, sufficiency, novelty and inventive step (all rejected at preliminary stage)Urgency of provisional measures applicationBalance of interests / necessity of provisional measuresScope of generally worded injunction (exclusion of Sinocare iCan i3)Skilled person definition as question of law not fact (R. 171.2 RoP)Costs — interim award at 50% of applicable ceiling (EUR 200,000)
Documents
Document titleDatePublic
action.communication.general2026-04-21Not public
Other Documents2026-04-10Not public
action.issueOrder.order2026-04-10Not public
Order2026-04-10Public
Receipt2026-04-03Not public
Cover sheet2026-04-03Not public
Application Respondent2026-04-03Not public
action.phaseChange.caseClose2026-03-30Not public
action.issueDecision.decision2026-03-30Not public
Final Order2026-03-30Public
action.phaseChange.oralPhaseClose2026-02-10Not public
Note2026-02-10Not public
action.issueOrder.order2026-02-04Not public
Order2026-02-04Public
Receipt2026-02-04Not public
Cover sheet2026-02-04Not public
Application document Appellant2026-02-04Not public
action.issueOrder.order2026-02-04Not public
Order2026-02-04Public
Receipt2026-02-03Not public
Cover sheet2026-02-03Not public
Application document Respondent2026-02-03Not public
action.issueOrder.order2026-02-02Not public
Order2026-02-02Public
Receipt2026-01-30Not public
Cover sheet2026-01-30Not public
Document2026-01-30Not public
action.issueOrder.order2026-01-29Not public
Order2026-01-29Public
Receipt2026-01-29Not public
Cover sheet2026-01-29Not public
Document2026-01-29Not public
Document2026-01-29Not public
Document2026-01-29Not public
action.communication.general2026-01-21Not public
action.communication.general2026-01-15Not public
action.phaseChange.oralPhaseOpen2026-01-14Not public
action.phaseChange.writtenPhaseClose2026-01-14Not public
action.issueOrder.order2026-01-09Not public
Order2026-01-09Public
action.summons.oralHearing2025-12-11Not public
Summons2025-12-11Public
action.communication.general2025-12-05Not public
Cover sheet2025-12-03Not public
Other document Respondent2025-12-03Not public
Receipt2025-12-03Not public
Cover sheet2025-12-02Not public
Other document Appellant2025-12-02Not public
Receipt2025-12-02Not public
Note2025-12-01Not public
Other document Respondent2025-11-28Not public
Cover sheet2025-11-28Not public
Other document Respondent2025-11-28Not public
Other document Respondent2025-11-28Not public
Receipt2025-11-28Not public
action.communication.general2025-11-28Not public
action.issueOrder.order2025-11-26Not public
Order2025-11-26Public
action.communication.general2025-11-25Not public
Other Documents2025-11-25Not public
Exhibit document Respondent2025-11-21Not public
Cover sheet2025-11-21Not public
Exhibit document Respondent2025-11-21Not public
Exhibit document Respondent2025-11-21Not public
Exhibit document Respondent2025-11-21Not public
Exhibit document Respondent2025-11-21Not public
Exhibit document Respondent2025-11-21Not public
Exhibit document Respondent2025-11-21Not public
Other document Respondent2025-11-21Not public
Statement of Response2025-11-21Not public
Other document Respondent2025-11-21Not public
Receipt2025-11-21Not public
action.publishOrderDecision.case2025-11-06Not public
Cover sheet2025-10-31Not public
Fee2025-10-31Not public
Exhibit document Appellant2025-10-31Not public
Exhibit document Appellant2025-10-31Not public
Exhibit document Appellant2025-10-31Not public
Exhibit document Appellant2025-10-31Not public
Exhibit document Appellant2025-10-31Not public
Exhibit document Appellant2025-10-31Not public
Exhibit document Appellant2025-10-31Not public
Exhibit document Appellant2025-10-31Not public
Exhibit document Appellant2025-10-31Not public
Exhibit document Appellant2025-10-31Not public
Proof of payment2025-10-31Not public
Statement of appeal and statement of the grounds of appeal2025-10-31Not public
Receipt2025-10-31Not public
Accepted arguments
What the court agreed with — by party.

  • UPC has jurisdiction over Sinocare Inc. (China) because by manufacturing and preparing products intended for European market and being actively involved in European marketing, there was a likelihood of damage in UPC Contracting Member States

    ClaimantLegal basis: Art. 71b(2) and Art. 7(2) Brussels I Recast; Art. 33(1)(a) UPCA

  • GlucoMen iCan sensor assembly is a pre-assembled unit comprising sensor, seal, support and sharp, satisfying feature 1.1

    ClaimantLegal basis: Art. 69 EPC; claim 1 of EP 4 344 633

  • 'Distal surface' in feature 1.4 means surface away from user's hand in direction of patient's skin, not necessarily configured to be placed on skin; does not require uninterrupted surface

    ClaimantLegal basis: Art. 69 EPC; claim 1 of EP 4 344 633

  • Feature 1.6 does not require seal to surround contacts portion on both sides; enclosing on one side is sufficient; seal may extend outside support and perform sealing after mating with electronics assembly

    ClaimantLegal basis: Art. 69 EPC; claim 1 of EP 4 344 633

  • Application was filed urgently — filed one month after patent grant and two weeks after unitary effect registration; preparatory work was reasonable

    ClaimantLegal basis: R. 211.4 RoP; R. 206.2 RoP

  • Respondent faces irreparable harm from price erosion in CGM market (both cash pay and reimbursement segments) justifying provisional measures

    ClaimantLegal basis: Art. 62 UPCA; R. 211.1 and 211.3 RoP

  • Generally worded preliminary injunction is appropriate in absence of special circumstances when infringement of a specific embodiment is established

    ClaimantLegal basis: Art. 62 UPCA; R. 211 RoP
Rejected arguments
What the court did not agree with — and why.

  • Appellant 2 did not contest jurisdiction in first instance but attempts to raise lack of jurisdiction on appeal; this opportunity was foregone

    RespondentLegal basis: Art. 26(1) Brussels I Recast; R. 19.7 RoP

  • Skilled person definition is a statement of fact (R. 171.2 RoP) and LD was bound by uncontested definition proposed by Appellants

    RespondentLegal basis: R. 171.2 RoP

  • 'Sensor assembly' in feature 1.1 means only a group of parts capable of working together, not necessarily a pre-assembled unit

    RespondentLegal basis: Art. 69 EPC; claim 1 of EP 4 344 633

  • 'Distal surface' requires a surface facing towards and placed on the patient's skin; must be uninterrupted

    RespondentLegal basis: Art. 69 EPC; claim 1 of EP 4 344 633

  • Feature 1.6 requires seal to surround contacts portion on both sides; limited to embodiment of Figures 34-35

    RespondentLegal basis: Art. 69 EPC; claim 1 of EP 4 344 633

  • Application lacked urgency because Respondent was aware of the product since December 2024 and the GlucoMen iCan was technically identical to Sinocare iCan i3 already on market since October 2023

    RespondentLegal basis: R. 211.4 RoP

  • Appellants would suffer substantial harm (loss of guarantees, contract damages, potential blacklisting) from preliminary injunction outweighing Respondent's interests

    RespondentLegal basis: Art. 62(2) UPCA; R. 211.3 RoP

  • Injunction scope should be strictly limited to GlucoMen iCan o3 or to reimbursement market only

    RespondentLegal basis: Art. 62 UPCA

  • Delivery up of GlucoMen iCan products in stock is disproportionate as they may expire before final merits determination

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