Short Summary
Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. filed an infringement action against Dexcom Inc. and Dexcom International Limited concerning European Patent EP4070727 before the Local Division The Hague of the Court of First Instance. The defendants filed counterclaims for revocation. All parties subsequently requested withdrawal of their respective claims and consented to the closure of proceedings. The court allowed the withdrawal, declared the proceedings closed, and ordered reimbursement of 20% of the court fees to the claimant.
Detailed Summary
This case concerned infringement proceedings and counterclaims for revocation before the Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court, Local Division The Hague, issued on 29 January 2025. The claimant, Abbott Diabetes Care Inc., based in Alameda, California, US, brought an infringement action against Dexcom Inc. (San Diego, US) and Dexcom International Limited (Nicosia, Cyprus) regarding European Patent EP4070727, which is owned by Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. The statement of claim was served on Dexcom Inc. on 30 November 2023 and on Dexcom International Limited on 20 December 2023. The defendants filed counterclaims for revocation, registered under CC_13509/2024 and CC_13898/2024. Related appeal proceedings were also pending (App_68465/2024, App_68468/2024, App_68372/2024, and App_68373/2024).
The full panel of deciding judges consisted of Presiding Judge and Judge-Rapporteur Edger Brinkman, legally qualified judges Margot Kokke and Pierluigi Perrotti, and technically qualified judge Alain Dumont. The language of proceedings was English.
On the grounds of the order, all parties to the proceedings requested withdrawal of their respective claims—the infringement claim and the counterclaims for revocation. They requested the court to render a decision declaring the proceedings closed. They indicated that all parties consented to the withdrawal and that no cost decision was requested. The court found the application admissible since there was no final decision in the actions in view of the pending appeal. Given the consent of all parties, no party could be considered to have a legitimate interest in the actions being decided by the Court, and the applications were allowed.
The court further allowed the claimant's request for reimbursement of 20% of the court fees pursuant to Rule 370.9, amounting to EUR 7,400. The value of the actions was set at EUR 4,000,000. The final order allowed the withdrawal of the action, declared the proceedings closed, ordered that the decision be entered on the register, declared that there was no need for a cost decision, ordered reimbursement of 20% of the court fees to the claimant, and set the value of the cases at EUR 4,000,000.
Practitioner Note
This case demonstrates the evidentiary and procedural standards applied in patent matters before The Hague (NL) Local Division. Understanding the court's reasoning in Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. vs Dexcom Inc. and Dexcom International Limited is valuable context for structuring arguments or assessing risk in similar proceedings.
Related Cases
Amazon.com, Inc. et al.vsInterDigital VC Holdings, Inc. et al.
Amazon sought suspensive effect under Rule 223.4 RoP for its appeal against an order of the Local Division Mannheim that prohibited Amazon from pursuing anti-suit injunctions or equivalent measures before the UK High Court that would impede InterDigital's patent infringement proceedings before the UPC. The Court of Appeal, presided by Judge Klaus Grabinski, dismissed Amazon's request, finding that Amazon had not demonstrated the impugned order was manifestly erroneous or that irreversible harm was imminent.
Ortovox Sportartikel GmbHvsMammut Sports Group AG, Mammut Sports Group GmbH
This is a cost assessment decision by the Local Chamber Düsseldorf concerning European Patent EP 3 466 498 B1. The court addressed two key issues: whether the use of multiple lawyers and patent attorneys on one side affects cost recoverability, and whether costs from preliminary injunction proceedings are separately recoverable from the main proceedings. The court held that multiple representatives do not bar cost recovery as long as no additional costs are generated, and that the cost caps for interim proceedings and main proceedings must be determined separately.
Abbott Diabetes Care Inc.vsDexcom Inc. and Dexcom International Limited
Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. filed an infringement action against Dexcom Inc. and Dexcom International Limited concerning European Patent EP3977921, and Dexcom filed a counterclaim for revocation. Both parties subsequently applied to withdraw their respective claims, with each consenting to the other's withdrawal. The Court of First Instance declared the proceedings closed without issuing a cost decision.
Mammoet Holding B.V.vsP.T.S. Machinery B.V.
Mammoet Holding B.V., proprietor of European patent EP 4 171 996 B1 concerning a modular trailer system with jack cradles, filed an ex parte application for preserving evidence against P.T.S. Machinery B.V. before the Local Division The Hague. Mammoet alleged that PTS, which had been commissioned in November 2020 to build jack cradles based on confidential drawings, was indirectly infringing the patent by producing and supplying a 'Mechanical Construction' matching the claimed invention. The court granted the application, ordering measures including physical seizure of documentation, access to PTS' premises, appointment of a bailiff and expert, and penalty payments for non-compliance.
Huawei Technologies Co. LtdvsNetgear Inc., Netgear International Limited, and Netgear Deutschland GmbH
Procedural order from the Local Chamber Munich of the Unified Patent Court concerning European Patents Nos. 3 611 989 and 3 678 321. Following an out-of-court settlement between the parties, Huawei withdrew its application for provisional measures, and the respondents consented to the withdrawal and the release of the security deposit. The court granted the withdrawal, terminated the proceedings, and ordered the release of the EUR 3,000,000 security deposit to Huawei's legal representatives.
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.