Short Summary
Abbott Diabetes Care Inc., proprietor of European patent EP2713879 relating to continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) on-body devices, sought a preliminary injunction against Sibio Technology Limited and Umedwings Netherlands B.V. for allegedly infringing the patent through the marketing of the GS1 CGM device in Europe. The Local Division The Hague granted the preliminary injunction, finding that Abbott had established a sufficient interest despite a unilateral cease-and-desist declaration, and that the Defendants' GS1 device likely infringed claims 1 and 4 of the patent.
Detailed Summary
Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. is the proprietor of European patent EP2713879, which protects an apparatus comprising a first assembly (including a portion of an on-body device), a second assembly coupleable to the first assembly (comprising a sharp supporting a sensor), an applicator assembly, and a container. The patent has a priority date of 11 December 2011 and was in force in Germany, France, The Netherlands, and Ireland. Abbott had initially opted the patent out of UPC competence but withdrew the opt-out on 14 March 2024.
Abbott has been developing, manufacturing, and marketing CGM devices under the FreeStyle Libre brand since 2007, serving over 1.3 million patients in Europe with approximately 80% market share. Defendant Sibio Technology Limited (Hong Kong) began marketing its own CGM device called GS1 in China in 2021 and entered the European market at the end of 2023. Defendant Umedwings Netherlands B.V. is named as the EU importer for the GS1 device. A related Chinese company, Shenzhen Sibionics Co. Ltd, had filed a Protective Letter on 29 September 2023 arguing non-infringement.
Abbott filed its application for a preliminary injunction and other provisional measures on 20 March 2024 at the UPC Local Division The Hague. The Defendants lodged an Objection on 23 April 2024, Abbott filed a Reply on 8 May 2024, and the Defendants filed a Rejoinder on 15 May 2024. An oral hearing was held on 22 May 2024.
Abbott argued that the GS1 device infringed independent claim 1 and dependent claim 4 of the patent, and sought a preliminary injunction prohibiting manufacture, offering, and placing on the market of the GS1 device, along with information orders, delivery-up orders, and penalty payments. The Defendants argued, among other things, that Abbott lacked sufficient interest due to a unilateral cease-and-desist declaration and that the proceedings were anticipated by the prior Protective Letter.
The Court found that Abbott had sufficient interest despite the cease-and-desist declaration, that the application was not devoid of purpose under R. 360 RoP, and that competence for Ireland was not contested. The Court assessed the merits and concluded that Abbott had established a prima facie case of infringement of claims 1 and 4 by the GS1 device.
The Court granted a preliminary injunction prohibiting the Defendants from infringing the patent by making, offering, placing on the market, importing, or storing the GS1 device in Germany, France, The Netherlands, and Ireland. The Court ordered delivery-up of GS1 devices to a bailiff within one week, with recurring penalty payments of up to EUR 10,000 per violation or EUR 100,000 per day of non-compliance. The Court ordered the Defendants to jointly and severally bear Abbott's costs, granting an interim award of EUR 11,000. The Court specified 30 calendar days after service as the date under R. 213 RoP. All other claims were rejected.
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 Sibio Technology Limited & Umedwings Netherlands B.V. is valuable context for structuring arguments or assessing risk in similar proceedings.
Related Cases
Sanofi Mature IP & OthersvsAccord Healthcare S.L.U. & Others (UPC_CFI_145/2024 and related cases)
This is a procedural order from the Local Division Munich of the Unified Patent Court concerning four related patent infringement actions involving European Patent No. 2 493 466. The claimants, a group of Sanofi entities, sought substitution of Sanofi Mature IP by Sanofi SA following a corporate reorganization in which Sanofi Mature IP was dissolved without liquidation and its assets, including the patent in suit, were universally transferred to Sanofi SA. The defendants raised no objections at the preliminary interim conference, and the Court granted the substitution, holding that it had no consequence on the proceedings under Rules 306 and 310 RoP.
Meril GmbH, Meril Life Sciences Pvt Ltd.vsEdwards Lifesciences Corporation
This is a procedural order from the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court concerning the appeal fee in a dispute over European Patent EP 3 763 331 (a crimping device for stent-based valve prostheses). The Court of Appeal determined that Meril, as appellants, must pay an appeal fee of €11,000 by analogy to the fee for an appeal under Rule 220.1(c) RoP regarding provisional measures under Article 62 EPCA, since the fee table contains no specific provision for an appeal under Rule 220.1(a) RoP against a costs order issued under Rule 360 RoP.
Aarke ABvsSodaStream Industries Ltd.
Unified Patent Court decision.
Panasonic Holdings CorporationvsXiaomi Technology Italy S.R.L., Xiaomi Technology Germany GmbH, Xiaomi Technology Netherlands B.V., Xiaomi Communications Co., Ltd., Xiaomi H.K. Limited, Xiaomi Inc., Xiaomi Technology France S.A.S., Shamrock Mobile GmbH, Beijing Xiaomi Mobile Software Co. Ltd., Odiporo GmbH
Procedural order from the Local Chamber Mannheim concerning European Patent EP 2207270. The court decided, under Rule 37.2 of the Rules of Procedure in conjunction with Article 33(3) of the Agreement on a Unified Patent Court, to jointly hear the infringement action together with the counterclaim for revocation and the counterclaim concerning a FRAND license. The early decision was justified by efficiency considerations and the court's early operational stage.
Brita SEvsWessper Sp. z o.o. (UPC_CFI_779/2024)
The Local Chamber Düsseldorf of the Unified Patent Court rejected the defendant's request for protective orders regarding confidential information in a patent infringement case concerning EP 1 748 830 B1. The defendant, Wessper Sp. z o.o., sought to classify information it was ordered to disclose under a prior infringement decision as confidential and to restrict access. The court held that while R. 262A RoP can apply analogously to such post-judgment disclosure, the defendant failed to justify why it did not raise confidentiality concerns during the main proceedings when it could reasonably have foreseen the disclosure obligation.
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.