Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. v. Dexcom Inc. and Dexcom International Limited

UPC-001009

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.

Jurisdiction
European UPC
Court
Nordic Baltic Regional Division
Case Number
UPC-001009
Judge(s)
Stefan Johansson Judge; Pierluigi Perrotti Technically qualified judge Renaud Fulconis LANGUAGE OF PROCEEDINGS

Detailed Summary

This case was decided by the Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court, Nordic-Baltic regional division, on 20 January 2025. The Claimant, Abbott Diabetes Care Inc., proprietor of European Patent EP3977921, had brought an infringement action (ACT_588346/2023) against Dexcom Inc. and Dexcom International Limited (the Defendants). The Defendants had filed a counterclaim for revocation (CC_14848/2024) in response.

The proceedings were resolved by mutual withdrawal. The Claimant requested the Court to permit the withdrawal of the infringement action and to render a decision declaring the proceedings closed, with no cost decision requested. The Defendants consented to this withdrawal. Separately, Dexcom requested the Court to permit the withdrawal of its counterclaim for revocation and to declare the proceedings closed, also without requesting a cost decision. The Claimant consented to the withdrawal of the counterclaim.

The Court applied Rule 265 of the Rules of Procedure (RoP), which permits a Claimant to apply to withdraw its action as long as there is no final decision, provided the other party does not have a legitimate interest in the action being decided by the Court. The Court noted that both parties had been notified of the requests and had confirmed the withdrawal of their respective actions. The parties agreed that the Court should not issue a decision on costs, and the Court accordingly refrained from issuing such a decision.

The final decision declared the proceedings closed and ordered that the decision on the closure of the proceedings be entered on the register. The decision was subject to appeal within two months of service. The panel consisted of Presiding Judge Stefan Johansson, Judge-Rapporteur Kai Härmand, Legally Qualified Judge Pierluigi Perrotti, and Technically Qualified Judge Renaud Fulconis.

Practitioner Note

This case demonstrates the evidentiary and procedural standards applied in patent matters before Nordic Baltic Regional 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

patentUPC-001319

Meril Life Sciences Pvt Limited and OthersvsEdwards Lifesciences Corporation

This procedural order from the Nordic-Baltic Regional Division of the Unified Patent Court concerns a request by the Defendants (Meril Life Sciences and related entities) for the Claimant (Edwards Lifesciences Corporation) to provide security for legal costs in an infringement action concerning EP3769722. The Defendants argued that security was warranted because the Claimant is based in the United States, outside the EU, making enforcement of any cost order potentially difficult. The court dismissed the application, holding that the Claimant's location outside the EU and the lack of experience enforcing UPC orders in the US are not sufficient grounds for ordering security, and that the balance of interests favored the Claimant.

patentUPC-001396

KraussMaffei Extrusion GmbHvsTROESTER GmbH & Co. KG

KraussMaffei Extrusion GmbH sued TROESTER GmbH & Co. KG for infringement of European Patent EP 3 221 117 before the Local Chamber Munich. After the main hearing on 16 April 2024, the parties reached an out-of-court settlement, and the plaintiff withdrew the action with the defendant's consent. The court allowed the withdrawal, terminated the proceedings, and ordered reimbursement of 20% of the paid court fees under Rule 370.9(b)(iii) RoP.

patentUPC-001072

Microsoft CorporationvsSuinno Mobile & AI Technologies Licensing Oy

Microsoft Corporation filed an application requesting that Suinno Mobile & AI Technologies Licensing Oy be ordered to provide additional security for legal costs of at least EUR 500,000 (alternatively EUR 300,000), on top of the EUR 300,000 security already ordered by the Court. The Court characterized the request as one to modify the existing security by increasing its amount, and after reviewing the arguments, dismissed the application, finding that the new circumstances cited by Microsoft did not warrant a reassessment of the adequacy of the security already ordered.

patentUPC-001226

NEC CorporationvsTCL Communication Technology Holdings Ltd. and Others

The Local Division Munich of the Unified Patent Court addressed an application by Access Advance LLC, administrator of a HEVC standard essential patent pool, to intervene in patent infringement proceedings brought by NEC Corporation against multiple TCL entities concerning European patent EP 2 863 637. The court admitted the intervention, holding that a patent pool administrator has a legal interest under Rule 313 RoP, that admission does not per se violate Article 101 TFEU, and that the intervener must be granted access to the case file subject to confidentiality restrictions on information already classified as confidential under Rule 262a RoP.

patentUPC-001278

Headwater Research LLCvsMotorola Mobility LLC, Motorola International Sales LLC, Motorola Mobility Germany GmbH, Digital River Ireland Ltd., Flextronics International Europe B.V.

This is a procedural order from the Local Chamber Munich of the Unified Patent Court concerning a patent infringement action based on European Patent EP 3 110 069. The court addressed whether the claimant's naming of 'Lenovo EMEA DC' as Defendant 5 constituted a mere misnomer or the naming of a non-existent party, and whether the case heading could be corrected to substitute 'Flextronics International Europe B.V.' The court applied Rule 305 RoP by analogy to correct the party designation but held that no effective service had been made, requiring re-service and granting the corrected Defendant 5 the full period to respond.

Arctic Invent — IP Strategy

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.

Talk to our patent team →

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.

Strategy Consult

Facing a similar patent matter?

Arctic's litigation team uses precedent data like this to build winning arguments.

Get a Strategy Call