UPClytics
ENDE
Sign inStart trial
View all cases

UPC CoA 901/2025

Nov 6, 2025·EP3988471 Unitary patent · DISPLAYS FOR A MEDICAL DEVICE

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
  • Mechanical engineering
    Handling
Language
English
First decided
Apr 17, 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: Abbott Group (67 cases)·A. Menarini Diagnostics s.r.l. (16 cases)

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

This dispute contains 3 other proceedings

UPC CFI 1743/2026·UPC CFI 587/2025·UPC APP 33807/2025

4 other defendants litigating the same or a related patent

CC 20188/2024·CC 13509/2024·UPC CFI 425/2023·UPC CFI 424/2023

Start a free trial to see how each one ended.

More cases: Court of Appeal·2025

Decisions
  • 2026-04-17
    Appeal RoP220.1Public

    Summary: The Court of Appeal set aside the first-instance order of the Local Division The Hague (which had dismissed Abbott's application for provisional measures) and granted a preliminary injunction prohibiting Respondents from indirectly infringing claims 1 and 14 of EP 3 988 471 B2 in all UPC Contracting Member States except Romania. The Court found it more likely than not that the patent is valid and infringed by the GlucoMen iCan CGM system, and declared the Respondents' cross-appeal on urgency inadmissible.

    Show the legal issues (9)
    • Claim construction — whether event data icons must be displayed on or near the graph line of the timeline graph, or whether placement in a separate panel/section suffices
    • Infringement — whether GlucoMen iCan (CGM system and iCan App) infringes claims 1 and 14 of EP 3 988 471
    • Validity — added matter (claims 1 and 14)
    • Validity — inventive step, including treatment of non-technical features under Art. 52(2) EPC
    • Urgency — whether Appellant acted with sufficient diligence before filing the preliminary injunction application
    • Necessity and balance of interests — whether preliminary injunction was warranted given competitive dynamics and market harm
    • Admissibility of cross-appeal — whether Respondents were adversely affected by the first-instance order for purposes of R. 220.1 / R. 237 RoP
    • Territorial scope of injunction — exclusion of Romania; non-extension to Sinocare iCan i3
    • Security for enforcement — request under Art. 82(2) UPCA and R. 352 RoP rejected
Documents
Show all 96 documents
Document titleDatePublic
Case closed2026-04-17Not public
Decision2026-04-17Not public
Final Order2026-04-17Public
Oral procedure closed2026-03-26Not public
Hearing recording reference document2026-03-26Not public
Order2026-03-20Not public
Order2026-03-20Public
Order2026-03-20Not public
Order2026-03-20Public
Receipt2026-03-19Not public
Accepted arguments
What the court agreed with — by party.

  • The event data icons feature (1.13(c)) of claim 1 requires only that icons are placed at locations on the graph according to the time of the event, not that they appear on or near the graph line itself; the GlucoMen iCan therefore satisfies this feature.

    ClaimantLegal basis: Art. 69 EPC and Protocol on Interpretation; claim construction principles from UPC_CoA_335/2023 and UPC_CoA_768/2024

  • A non-technical feature should not be excluded from the assessment of inventive step merely because it would be a 'non-invention' under Art. 52(2) EPC standing alone; it may still contribute to technical character through interaction with other claim features.

    ClaimantLegal basis: Art. 52(2) EPC; inventive step assessment principles

  • Urgency requirements were satisfied: the relevant date was 24 April 2025 (product launch / user guide publication), and Appellant filed its application approximately eight weeks later after diligently investigating infringement, testing products and assessing market impact.

    ClaimantLegal basis: R. 211.2 RoP; Art. 62 UPCA

  • Necessity and balance of interests favours injunction: Appellant faces price erosion in both cash pay and reimbursement CGM markets, erosion of market share, and long-term harm that is difficult to quantify or reverse.

    ClaimantLegal basis: Art. 62(2) UPCA; R. 211.3 RoP
Rejected arguments
What the court did not agree with — and why.

  • The GlucoMen iCan does not infringe claim 1 because the event data icons are not displayed on or near the graph line of the timeline graph but in a separate panel/section of the screen.

    RespondentLegal basis: Art. 69 EPC; claim construction

  • Claims 1 and 14 contain added matter and lack an inventive step, making the patent more likely than not invalid.

    RespondentLegal basis: Art. 123(2) EPC; Art. 56 EPC

  • Feature 1.7(c) excludes status information provided or overlaid by the receiver unit itself (e.g. battery life data).

    RespondentLegal basis: Art. 69 EPC; claim construction

  • The application lacked urgency because Appellant did not act for 1.5 years against the Sinocare iCan i3 (allegedly technically identical) and waited approximately two months after 24 April 2025 before filing.

    RespondentLegal basis: R. 211.4 RoP; urgency requirements

  • The preliminary injunction should be limited to the reimbursement market only.

    RespondentLegal basis: Art. 62 UPCA; proportionality

  • A security for enforcement of EUR 400,000 should be ordered against Appellant under Art. 82(2) UPCA and R. 352 RoP.

    RespondentLegal basis: Art. 82(2) UPCA; R. 352 RoP

  • The cross-appeal seeking to overturn the first-instance order on urgency grounds should be declared admissible and granted.

    RespondentLegal basis: R. 220.1 RoP; R. 237 RoP