Short Summary
Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. appealed a decision by the UPC Local Division The Hague that denied its request for a preliminary injunction against Sibio Technology Limited and Umedwings Netherlands B.V. (collectively "Sibionics") for alleged infringement of European Patent EP 3 831 283 relating to an on-body glucose monitoring device. The Court of Appeal set aside the first instance order, finding that the patent claims did not contain added matter, and granted a preliminary injunction prohibiting Sibionics from infringing the patent with its GS1 CGM product, along with information and delivery-up orders.
Detailed Summary
Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. is the proprietor of European Patent EP 3 831 283, which was filed as a second generation divisional application stemming from parent application EP 3 300 658 A1, itself originating from PCT application WO 2013/090215 A2. The patent has a filing date of 11 December 2012 and a priority date of 11 December 2011. It was published on 9 June 2021, with the mention of grant published on 26 April 2023. No opposition was filed. The patent is in force in UPCA Contracting Member States including Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, and Sweden, as well as in the UK, Ireland, and Spain. The patent was initially opted-out of UPC competence, but Abbott withdrew the opt-out on 14 March 2024.
The patent has two independent claims: claim 1 claims an on-body device comprising a glucose sensor assembly, an enclosure with a top portion and a base portion configured to be adhered to the skin surface, and sensor electronics positioned within the enclosure. Claim 15 claims a method for assembling such an on-body device.
Sibionics offered a continuous glucose monitoring device called the "GS1 CGM product" for sale on its sibionicsshop.com website. On 20 March 2024, Abbott filed an Application for a preliminary injunction and other provisional measures with the UPC Local Division The Hague, arguing that the GS1 CGM product infringed its patent. The Court of First Instance denied the application by Order no. ORD_30431/2024, finding that on the balance of probabilities, claim 1 and dependent claims 6, 7, 9, 11, 12, 13, 14, and 26 would likely be held to contain added matter relative to the original application as filed, the parent application as filed, and the application as filed, due to the omission of an elastomeric sealing member or a second elastomeric unit in the wording of the claim.
Abbott appealed this decision. The oral hearing was held on 27 November 2024. On appeal, Abbott requested that the impugned order be set aside and that the Court of Appeal grant a preliminary injunction prohibiting Sibionics from infringing the patent, particularly by making, offering, placing on the market, importing, or storing the GS1 Device. Abbott also requested orders for Sibionics to provide information about the origin, distribution channels, quantities, and third parties involved in the production or distribution of GS1 Devices, as well as delivery-up of infringing products, all subject to penalty payments.
The Court of Appeal established several key legal principles: (1) as a general principle of claim interpretation, means-plus-function features must be understood as any feature suitable for carrying out the function; (2) a general injunction may be justified even if it is not shown that a patent is infringed by all possible infringing acts, as one type of likely infringement suffices as a basis for a general preliminary injunction covering all possible ways of infringing; and (3) the measures mentioned in Art. 67 UPCA may also be ordered in the framework of provisional measure proceedings, provided there is an urgent interest and such measures are proportionate.
The Court of Appeal set aside the impugned order and granted Abbott's requests. The Court ordered Sibionics, individually and jointly, to refrain from any infringing acts as set forth in Art. 25(a) UPCA with any product according to claim 1 of the patent, particularly the GS1 Device, in the Contracting Member States where the patent is in force. Sibionics was ordered to provide written information about the origin, distribution channels, quantities, and third parties involved in the production or distribution of GS1 Devices within four weeks of service. Sibionics was also ordered to deliver up any GS1 Device in stock or possession to a bailiff appointed by Abbott within one week of service. These orders were subject to recurring penalty payments of up to EUR 10,000.00 for each violation plus EUR 100,000.00 for each day of continued non-compliance. Sibionics was ordered to jointly and severally bear the reasonable and proportionate legal costs and expenses incurred by Abbott in both proceedings, except for costs related to the request for suspensive effect and Abbott's request to extend the application to Ireland. Sibionics was also ordered to pay Abbott an interim award of costs of EUR 11,000.00. The order was declared immediately enforceable.
Practitioner Note
This case demonstrates the evidentiary and procedural standards applied in patent matters before Luxembourg (LU). Understanding the court's reasoning in Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. vs Sibio Technology Limited, Umedwings Netherlands B.V. is valuable context for structuring arguments or assessing risk in similar proceedings.
Related Cases
NEC CorporationvsTCL Industrial Holdings Co., Ltd., TCL Communication Technology Holdings Ltd., TCL Overseas Marketing Ltd.
NEC Corporation appealed orders of the Munich Local Division that denied its requests for alternative service of Statements of claim on three Asian TCL defendants domiciled in China and Hong Kong. The Court of Appeal held that service by email to a person not authorized to accept service, and public service by written notice displayed at the court's premises, were not permissible at this stage of the proceedings. The appeal was rejected, with the Court confirming that Hague Convention service attempts should normally be made before alternative methods of service can be employed.
Occlutech GmbHvsLepu Medical (Europe) Cooperatief U.A. a.o.
Occlutech GmbH, proprietor of European Patent EP 2 387 951 B1 covering a braided implantable occlusion device, sought provisional measures against Lepu Medical entities for alleged infringement with their 'MemoCarna ASD' and 'MemoCarna VSD' devices. The Local Division Hamburg held that the Defendants' recent CE-mark approval, combined with their public marketing activities and trade fair participation, established imminent infringement and territorial jurisdiction in Germany. The court granted the preliminary injunction, ordering the Defendants to cease and desist from offering, placing on the market, or using the infringing devices in Germany, France, Italy, the Netherlands, and Ireland, with a penalty of up to EUR 250,000 per non-compliance.
Avago Technologies International Sales Pte. LimitedvsRenault Deutschland AG a.o.
Avago Technologies International Sales Pte. Limited filed a patent infringement action against Renault Deutschland AG, Renault Retail Group Deutschland GmbH, and Renault S.A.S. concerning European Patent EP 2 184 891 B1. Before the written proceedings were concluded, the plaintiff withdrew the action, and the defendants consented to the withdrawal. The parties agreed that each side would bear its own costs, and the court issued an order permitting the withdrawal, terminating the proceedings, and directing a 50% refund of court fees to the plaintiff.
Cardo Systems, Ltd.vsShenzhen Ziwu Chuangxin Technology Co., Ltd.and Resosport Limited
Cardo Systems, proprietor of EP 4 240 194 B1 relating to fastening devices for head-protective gear, obtained an ex parte injunction and seizure order against Shenzhen Ziwu Chuangxin Technology and Resosport Limited on 5 November 2025 during the EICMA motorcycle trade fair in Milan. The respondents applied for review of the order, challenging validity, infringement, and the balance of interests. The Milan Local Division revoked the provisional measures in their entirety, finding no infringement, no urgency, and that Cardo had breached its duty of candour, while ordering Cardo to pay EUR 28,000 in interim costs and partially releasing the security deposit.
WEPA NEDERLAND B.V., Swalmen, The Netherlands, Rechtsanwälte PartmbB, Munich, Germany and patent attorney DvsESSITY HYGIENE AND HEALTH AKTIEBOLAG, Göteborg, Sweden
This case concerned an appeal by WEPA Nederland B.V. against an order of the Local Division The Hague dated 22 June 2026, which had confirmed a prior order for preservation of evidence in proceedings initiated by Essity Hygiene and Health Aktiebolag regarding EP 3 289 139. The sole point at issue was the reimbursement of overpaid court fees, as WEPA had paid 14,600 EUR in appeal fees while arguing the correct amount was 5,000 EUR. The Court of Appeal held that under Table IV of the amended Table of Court Fees, the fixed fee for an appeal under R. 220.1(c) RoP was 5,000 EUR, and since the value of the action (400,000 EUR) fell below the 500,000 EUR threshold, no additional value-based fee applied. The Registry was instructed to reimburse 9,600 EUR to WEPA.
Dealing with a patent challenge?
Whether it's a Section 3(d) rejection, a post-grant opposition, or a FRAND dispute, Arctic's patent litigation team has handled it. Get a strategy call.
Disclaimer: This page contains an automated summary based on publicly available judicial records. The content is generated for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Always verify details against the original source judgment before relying on this information for any legal purpose. If you believe any information is inaccurate, please contact us.