UPC_CFI_230/2023

SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR DISPLAY DEVICE AND SENSOR ELECTRONICS UNIT COMMUNICATION

InfringementMain Infringement ActionParis LDInfringementCase Closed

Overview Decisions Reasoning Citations Documents Timeline

This case cites

Authorities cited within the decisions on file for this case.

EPC article · 10

Target	Legal point	Strength	Excerpt
76(1)	claim construction — parties define subject-matter of dispute	Binding	the principle that the parties define the subject-matter of the dispute, a general principle of law which is reiterated in Art. 76(1) of the UPC Agreement
83	jurisdiction — transitional period carve-out from UPC jurisdiction	Binding	allows the claimant in the main action to exclude certain acts of infringement in order to avoid the inconvenience of parallel jurisdictions between the UPC and national courts during the transitional period provided for in Art. 83 of the Agreement ("carve out").
71c	jurisdiction — Brussels Ibis applicability to UPC	Background	It is not necessary to apply Art. 71c for the UPC to be governed by the Brussels Ibis.
31	jurisdiction — international jurisdiction established per Brussels Ibis	Binding	Art. 31 of the UPC Agreement governing its international jurisdiction clearly states: "The international jurisdiction of the Court shall be established in accordance with Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012".
138(1)(c)	added matter — patent revoked for extending subject-matter beyond application as filed	Binding	Auxiliary request 2 extends the subject-matter of the European patent beyond the content of the application as filed (Art. 138(1)(c) EPC).
65(2)	sufficiency — grounds for revocation	Binding	the European patent EP 3435866 B1 is not valid ... and it must be entirely revoked in accordance with Art. 138(1) EPC and Art. 65(2) UPCA.
65(3)	claim amendment — limiting patent to dependent claim subject-matter	Binding	DEXCOM has also not limited the patent by amending the claims to correspond to the subject-matter of one of the dependent claims, in accordance with Art. 65(3) UPCA and Art. 138(2) EPC.
138(2)	claim amendment — limiting patent in revocation	Binding	DEXCOM has also not limited the patent by amending the claims to correspond to the subject-matter of one of the dependent claims, in accordance with Art. 65(3) UPCA and Art. 138(2) EPC.
138(1)	novelty/inventive step — patent revoked	Binding	the European patent EP 3435866 B1 is not valid, neither as granted, nor as amended by Auxiliary requests 1 and 2, and it must be entirely revoked in accordance with Art. 138(1) EPC and Art. 65(2) UPCA.
69	security for costs — unsuccessful party bears costs	Binding	DEXCOM, as the unsuccessful party, is required to bear legal costs in accordance with Art. 69 of the Agreement.

Rules of Procedure · 9

Target	Legal point	Strength	Excerpt
RoP_rule_262.2	language regime — confidential information not disclosed in public register	Binding	there are sufficient reasons not to disclose the Confidential information in the public register pursuant to R. 262.2 RoP.
RoP_rule_262A	security for costs — restriction of access to confidential information	Binding	The Respondent accepts in principle the restriction of access to the information contained in the Statement of Defence pursuant to R.262A RoP
RoP_rule_220.2	jurisdiction — leave to appeal a case management order	Binding	the Abbott entities filed a request for leave to appeal pursuant Rule 220.2 of the Rules of Procedure (RoP) concerning the said confidentiality order.
RoP_rule_333	jurisdiction — review of case management order by panel before appeal	Binding	a case management decision or order made by the judge-rapporteur or the presiding judge can only be appealed if such decision or order has first been reviewed by the panel pursuant to Rule 333.1.
RoP_rule_220.3	jurisdiction — discretionary review after refusal of leave to appeal	Binding	it is only possible to make a request for discretionary review to the Court of Appeal under Rule 220.3 RoP in the event leave to appeal of an order of a panel is refused.
RoP_rule_262A	security for costs — confidentiality club fine amount and proportionality	Binding	a fine has already been imposed in accordance with the order of 31 December 2023 taken by the Munich Local Division of the UPC pursuant to R. 262A RoP in the proceedings UPC CFI 233/2023.
RoP_rule_30.1	claim amendment — conditional application to amend	Binding	DEXCOM has made a conditional application to amend the patent in accordance with Rule 30.1 RoP, by filing replacement claim 1 under a first and a second auxiliary request.
RoP_rule_118.5	security for costs — unsuccessful party bears legal costs	Binding	Pursuant to Rule 118. 5 RoP, the Court decides in principle that DEXCOM, as the unsuccessful party, is required to bear legal costs in accordance with Art. 69 of the Agreement.
RoP_rule_151	security for costs — costs determination in separate proceedings	Binding	the amount covering the costs of the successful party shall be determined by the Court in separate proceedings, upon request by a party for cost decision pursuant to Rule 151 RoP.

courtName.other · 2

Target	Legal point	Strength	Excerpt
Article 9.3 of the EU Directive on Trade Secrets	security for costs — measures to protect confidential information and fair trial	Binding	Pursuant to Article 9.3 of the EU Directive on Trade Secrets, the Court, when deciding on the measures to protect confidential information, shall take into account the need to ensure a fair trial
Art. 29-30 Brussels Ibis Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012	jurisdiction — parallel proceedings and related actions	Binding	Art. 29 to 30 of the Brussels Ibis are directly applicable to the UPC.

UPC Court of Appeal · 1

Target	Legal point	Strength	Excerpt
UPC_CoA_486/2023	jurisdiction — general principle requiring panel review before appeal of case management order	Binding	The UPC Court of Appeal ruled in its order of 11/01/2024 (n°486/2023, §6) that: "As a general principle, unless provided otherwise, a case management decision or order made by the judge-rapporteur"

EPO Boards of Appeal · 1

Target	Legal point	Strength	Excerpt
G 2/10	added matter — disclaimers distinguished from introducing subject-matter from described embodiments	Distinguished	DEXCOM refers to the decision by the Enlarged Board of Appeal of the EPO G 2/10, OJ 2012, 376, point 4.5.1. However, that decision pertains to disclaimers, which is a different situation.

Cited by

Subsequent UPC decisions citing this case.

Cited in	Date	Legal point	Strength	Excerpt
ORD_16795/2024 Court of Appeal	Mar 14, 2024	impugned confidentiality order	Background	Order of the Court of First Instance (Paris Local Division) of 19/12/2023 – ORD_589749/2023 UPC_CFI_230/2023 ACT_546446/2023