Executive Summary
In this procedural order, the UPC Court of Appeal addressed requests concerning auxiliary claims and deadlines in a provisional measures appeal involving Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. against Sibio Technology Limited and Umedwings Netherlands B.V. The court ultimately rejected Abbott's attempts to disregard the Respondents' request for an extension of time. This decision highlights the court's careful balancing act between parties' interests, particularly when new procedural requests are introduced late in proceedings.
What the Court Held — Ratio Decidendi
The Court of Appeal determined that granting an extension of deadline for the Respondents to respond to newly introduced auxiliary requests was reasonable, balancing the interests of both parties despite Abbott's desire for a quick hearing. The court emphasized that introducing such requests at the appeal stage inherently carries the risk of delay.
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
Nera Innovations Ltd.vsXiaomi Communications Co, Ltd., Xiaomi Inc., Xiaomi Technology Netherlands B.V., Xiaomi Technology Germany GmbH
This UPC Court of Appeal decision addresses the procedural issue of partially withdrawing an appeal against multiple defendants in a patent infringement case. Nera Innovations sought to withdraw its appeal specifically against two EU-based Xiaomi entities (NL and DE), arguing they lacked legitimate interest due to prior service of process. The court rejected this request, emphasizing that even if some parties are not directly affected by the procedural change, their right to due process must be protected. This ruling reinforces the importance of considering all stakeholders' interests when managing complex multi-defendant litigation in the UPC.
Hypertherm Inc.vsTec.Mo. s.r.l.
In a procedural decision, the UPC Local Division of Milan dismissed an infringement action brought by Hypertherm Inc. against Tec.Mo. s.r.l. The case was terminated because both parties had reached a comprehensive out-of-court settlement covering all disputes and litigation costs. Crucially, the court confirmed the refund of 60% of the initial court fees to the claimant under Rule 370.9(c)(i) RoP, demonstrating how procedural rules facilitate efficient case closure upon amicable resolution.
Gowling WLGvsMerz Therapeutics GmbH, Merz Pharmaceuticals LLC, Merz Pharma France-Viatris Santé
This procedural order addressed a request by Gowling WLG, a third-party firm of UPC representatives, seeking access to the case file in an ongoing provisional measures dispute between Merz and Viatris. The Court balanced the need for transparency with the protection of confidential information. Access was granted selectively, allowing the applicant to review extracts relevant to the legal issue of 'unreasonable delay,' while ensuring personal data was anonymized.
Canon Kabushiki KaishavsKatun Germany GmbH a.o., Katun (E.D.C.) B.V., Katun Corporation, General Plastic Industrial Co., Ltd.
In this procedural order, the UPC Local Division in Düsseldorf addressed a request by Canon Kabushiki Kaisha to submit further evidence regarding additional infringing products found during a late test purchase. The Court rejected the Claimant's attempt to introduce new arguments concerning these additional model numbers, citing principles of due process and procedural economy. The ruling stressed that evidence should be presented without delay when relevant deadlines are approaching, especially if the subject matter is materially identical to what has already been pleaded.
Sun Patent TrustvsVivo Mobile Communication Co., Ltd.
This UPC Court of Appeal decision addressed an application for suspensive effect concerning a confidential information order issued by the Court of First Instance. Sun Patent Trust sought to halt the disclosure of highly confidential information (HCI) to designated employees of Vivo, arguing that continued access would render its appeal pointless. The Court ultimately rejected this request, finding that the appeal would not become devoid of purpose and that the claimant failed to establish a risk of irreparable harm.
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.