UPClytics
EnglishDeutsch
Sign inSign up
View all cases

UPC CoA 901/2025

Nov 6, 2025·EP3988471: DISPLAYS FOR A MEDICAL DEVICE

Case details
Status
Oral Phase
Action
Appeal
Category
Main Appeal
Parties
Claimants
Reps: Christian Dekoninck (Taylor Wessing N.V., Brussels, Belgium)
Respondents
Reps: Thierry Lautier (Bird & Bird AARPI, Paris, France); Edoardo Barbera (Bird & Bird Società tra Avvocati S.r.l., Milan, Italy)
Division
Court of Appeal
Judges
Technology
Healthcare Informatics
Language
English
First decided
Apr 17, 2026
Claims
At issue1, 14
Infringed1, 14
Notes: This is a preliminary injunction (provisional measures) order, not a final merits decision. The Court of Appeal found it more likely than not that claims 1 and 14 are valid and indirectly infringed by the GlucoMen iCan CGM system and iCan App. The Court set aside the first-instance finding of non-infringement based on incorrect claim construction of feature 1.13(c).
Decisions
  • 2026-04-17
    PI grantedAppeal decisionAppeal RoP220.1

    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.

    Legal issues: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 sufficesInfringement — whether GlucoMen iCan (CGM system and iCan App) infringes claims 1 and 14 of EP 3 988 471Validity — added matter (claims 1 and 14)Validity — inventive step, including treatment of non-technical features under Art. 52(2) EPCUrgency — whether Appellant acted with sufficient diligence before filing the preliminary injunction applicationNecessity and balance of interests — whether preliminary injunction was warranted given competitive dynamics and market harmAdmissibility of cross-appeal — whether Respondents were adversely affected by the first-instance order for purposes of R. 220.1 / R. 237 RoPTerritorial scope of injunction — exclusion of Romania; non-extension to Sinocare iCan i3Security for enforcement — request under Art. 82(2) UPCA and R. 352 RoP rejected
Documents
Document titleDatePublic
action.phaseChange.caseClose2026-04-17Not public
action.issueDecision.decision2026-04-17Not public
Final Order2026-04-17Public
action.phaseChange.oralPhaseClose2026-03-26Not public
Hearing recording reference document2026-03-26Not public
action.issueOrder.order2026-03-20Not public
Order2026-03-20Public
action.issueOrder.order2026-03-20Not public
Order2026-03-20Public
Receipt2026-03-19Not public
Cover sheet2026-03-19Not public
Application Appellant2026-03-19Not public
Receipt2026-03-19Not public
Cover sheet2026-03-19Not public
Application Respondent2026-03-19Not public
action.communication.general2026-02-25Not public
action.summons.oralHearing2026-01-20Not public
Summons2026-01-20Public
Receipt2026-01-19Not public
Cover sheet2026-01-19Not public
Document2026-01-19Not public
Document2026-01-19Not public
Document2026-01-19Not public
action.phaseChange.oralPhaseOpen2026-01-14Not public
action.phaseChange.writtenPhaseClose2026-01-14Not public
action.summons.oralHearing2026-01-13Not public
Summons2026-01-13Public
action.issueOrder.order2026-01-09Not public
Order2026-01-09Public
Note2025-12-23Not public
Note2025-12-18Not public
Exhibit document Respondent2025-12-18Not public
Cover sheet2025-12-18Not public
Statement of Response2025-12-18Not public
Exhibit document Respondent2025-12-18Not public
Exhibit document Respondent2025-12-18Not public
Exhibit document Respondent2025-12-18Not public
Exhibit document Respondent2025-12-18Not public
Exhibit document Respondent2025-12-18Not public
Other document Respondent2025-12-18Not public
Receipt2025-12-18Not public
action.issueOrder.order2025-12-15Not public
Order2025-12-15Public
Note2025-12-05Not public
Cover sheet2025-12-05Not public
Application document Respondent2025-12-05Not public
Exhibit document Respondent2025-12-05Not public
Receipt2025-12-05Not public
action.communication.general2025-12-02Not public
Cover sheet2025-12-02Not public
Further pleadings2025-12-02Not public
Receipt2025-12-02Not public
Formal Deficiency found2025-12-02Not public
Cover sheet2025-12-01Not public
Fee2025-12-01Not public
Exhibit document Respondent2025-12-01Not public
Exhibit document Respondent2025-12-01Not public
Exhibit document Respondent2025-12-01Not public
Exhibit document Respondent2025-12-01Not public
Exhibit document Respondent2025-12-01Not public
Exhibit document Respondent2025-12-01Not public
Exhibit document Respondent2025-12-01Not public
Exhibit document Respondent2025-12-01Not public
Exhibit document Respondent2025-12-01Not public
Exhibit document Respondent2025-12-01Not public
Exhibit document Respondent2025-12-01Not public
Exhibit document Respondent2025-12-01Not public
Exhibit document Respondent2025-12-01Not public
Exhibit document Respondent2025-12-01Not public
Exhibit document Respondent2025-12-01Not public
Exhibit document Respondent2025-12-01Not public
Exhibit document Respondent2025-12-01Not public
Proof of payment2025-12-01Not public
Statement of Response including Statement of cross-appeal2025-12-01Not public
Proof of payment2025-12-01Not public
Receipt2025-12-01Not public
Note2025-12-01Not public
Note2025-12-01Not public
Note2025-11-19Not public
Note2025-11-19Not public
action.publishOrderDecision.case2025-11-14Not public
Cover sheet2025-11-06Not public
Fee2025-11-06Not public
Proof of payment2025-11-06Not public
Statement of appeal and statement of the grounds of appeal2025-11-06Not public
Other document Appellant2025-11-06Not public
Exhibit document Appellant2025-11-06Not public
Exhibit document Appellant2025-11-06Not public
Exhibit document Appellant2025-11-06Not public
Exhibit document Appellant2025-11-06Not public
Exhibit document Appellant2025-11-06Not public
Exhibit document Appellant2025-11-06Not public
Exhibit document Appellant2025-11-06Not public
Exhibit document Appellant2025-11-06Not public
Exhibit document Appellant2025-11-06Not public
Receipt2025-11-06Not 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