Cases
Workhorse listing across all UPC cases. Filters apply across tabs.
| Date | Case | Division | Action | Motion | Outcome | Summary |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2025-07-22 | UPC_APP_31180/2025 | Paris LD | Generic application | Procedural | Procedural only | The Local Division Paris ruled on TIRU's request for referral of revocation counterclaims to the Central Division Paris and joinder of parallel infringement actions, granting the referral of counterclaims and addressing a possible stay of the infringement proceedings pending the parallel revocation proceedings concerning EP 3 178 578 (waste incineration). |
| 2025-07-22 | UPC_APP_30813/2025 | Paris LD | Generic application | Procedural | Procedural only | Procedural order of the Paris Local Division in an infringement action brought by TIRU against VALINEA ENERGIE concerning EP 3 178 578. The order addresses TIRU's request to refer counterclaims for revocation to the Central Division (Paris) already seized of a nullity action, to join infringement actions, and to stay the proceedings. The order rules on procedural consolidation and referral of counterclaims. |
| 2025-07-21 | UPC_CFI_231/2024 | Paris CD | Revocation Action | Revocation merits | Patent maintained | Decision of the Paris Central Division dismissing the revocation action by Sibio Technology Limited against Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. concerning EP 3 831 283 B1 (glucose monitoring device / CGM sensor). All grounds for revocation (lack of novelty and inventive step) failed. The patent is maintained as granted. Abbott (defendant/patentee) awarded costs. Key headnotes: novelty and inventive step are separate grounds and cannot be combined against the same prior art; grounds for revocation of dependent claims must be stated from the outset; Rule 75(3) RoP does not apply when a counterclaim for revocation in a subsequent infringement action is filed after the oral hearing in an earlier revocation action. |
| 2025-01-20 | UPC_APP_68693/2024 | Nordic-Baltic RD | Application Rop 265 | Procedural | Withdrawn | The Nordic-Baltic Regional Division declared the proceedings closed following the mutual withdrawal of Abbott Diabetes Care's infringement action and Dexcom's counterclaim for revocation (both relating to EP 3 977 921). Both parties consented to withdrawal with no cost decision requested or made. |
| 2025-01-20 | UPC_APP_68369/2024 | Nordic-Baltic RD | Application Rop 265 | Procedural | Withdrawn | The Nordic-Baltic Regional Division permitted the withdrawal of Abbott Diabetes Care Inc.'s infringement action (ACT_588346/2023) and Dexcom's counterclaim for revocation (CC_14848/2024) in Abbott v Dexcom proceedings (UPC 430/2023, EP 3 977 921). Both parties consented to each other's withdrawals and agreed that no costs order would be made. The Court declared the proceedings closed. |
| 2025-01-20 | UPC_CFI_430/2023 | Nordic-Baltic RD | Application Rop 265 | — | Withdrawn | The Nordic-Baltic Regional Division declared proceedings closed following the mutual withdrawal of Abbott Diabetes Care Inc.'s infringement action and Dexcom's counterclaim for revocation concerning EP 3 977 921. Both parties consented to each other's withdrawal and agreed that no cost decision would be issued. |
| 2024-07-29 | UPC_APP_39789/2024 | The Hague LD | Application RoP262.1 (b) | Procedural | Procedural only | Procedural order granting Powell Gilbert LLP's application for public access to the register (R. 262.1 RoP) in the Abbott Diabetes Care v Sibio Technology preliminary injunction proceedings. The court applied the criteria from Ocado v AutoStore and granted access despite objections from both Abbott and Sibio that proceedings were still ongoing on appeal. |
| 2024-06-19 | ACT_14945/2024 | The Hague LD | Application for provisional measures | Preliminary injunction | PI denied | Application for a preliminary injunction by Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. against Sibio Technology Limited and Umedwings Netherlands B.V. concerning EP 3 831 283 (wearable glucose monitoring device) was denied by The Hague Local Division. The court found it more likely than not that claim 1 of the patent would be held invalid for added matter (the claimed feature of a connector support being received through a distal-facing opening into a recess was not directly and unambiguously derivable from the application as filed). As a result, Abbott must bear defendants' costs. Value of the action set at EUR 4,000,000. |