UPClytics
ENDE
Sign inStart trial
View all cases

UPC CoA 899/2025

Oct 31, 2025·EP4344633 Unitary patent · ANALYTE SENSOR METHODS

Follow
Case details
Status
Case Closed
Action
Appeal
Category
Main appeal
Parties
Claimants
Representatives
Respondents
Representatives
Division
Court of Appeal
Judges
Technology
  • Instruments
    Medical technology
Language
English
First decided
Mar 30, 2026
EPO Opposition
How this compares
How long the court takes to reach a first decision.
Median days to first decision
All UPC124
Judge Ulrike VoßLocked
Judge Bart van den BroekLocked
Judge Nathalie SabotierLocked
Judge Gérard MyonLocked
Judge Dorothea HoferLocked

At the UPC: Sinocare Inc. (8 cases)·Abbott Group (67 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 CFI 624/2025·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: Court of Appeal·2025

Decisions
  • 2026-03-30
    Appeal RoP220.1Public

    Summary: 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.

    Show the legal issues (12)
    • Jurisdiction over Chinese defendant (Sinocare Inc.) based on Art. 71b(2) Brussels I Recast and Art. 7(2) BR
    • Waiver 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 iCan
    • Validity — added matter, sufficiency, novelty and inventive step (all rejected at preliminary stage)
    • Urgency of provisional measures application
    • Balance of interests / necessity of provisional measures
    • Scope 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
Show all 88 documents
Document titleDatePublic
Communication2026-04-21Not public
Other Documents2026-04-10Not public
Order2026-04-10Not public
Order2026-04-10Public
Receipt2026-04-03Not public
Cover sheet2026-04-03Not public
Application Respondent2026-04-03Not public
Case closed2026-03-30Not public
Decision2026-03-30Not public
Final Order2026-03-30Public
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