Dexcom, Inc. v. Abbott Laboratories, Abbott Diabetes Care inc, Abbott France, Abbott NV/SA, Abbott B.V, Abbott S.r.l, Abbott Sacandinavia Aktiebolag, Abbott GmbH, Abbott Diagnostics Gmbh, Abbott Logistics B.V

UPC-001653

Unified Patent Court decision.

Jurisdiction
European UPC
Court
Paris (FR) Local Division
Case Number
UPC-001653
Decision Date
19 December 2023

Practitioner Note

This case demonstrates the evidentiary and procedural standards applied in patent matters before Paris (FR) Local Division. Understanding the court's reasoning in Dexcom, Inc. vs Abbott Laboratories, Abbott Diabetes Care inc, Abbott France, Abbott NV/SA, Abbott B.V, Abbott S.r.l, Abbott Sacandinavia Aktiebolag, Abbott GmbH, Abbott Diagnostics Gmbh, Abbott Logistics B.V is valuable context for structuring arguments or assessing risk in similar proceedings.

Related Cases

patentUPC-000893

ApplicantvsDefendant (UPC_CFI_142/2025)

The applicant, as registered and sole proprietor of a European Patent, sought an order under Art. 60 UPCA and R. 192 RoP to preserve evidence (Saisie) against the defendant, alleging highly probable infringement of the patent. The Local Division Mannheim rejected the application, finding that the applicant failed to establish a sufficient degree of probability that the asserted claim combination was infringed, and that the requested measures—including requiring the defendant to actively set up a full test environment—went beyond what Art. 60 UPCA and R. 192 RoP permit.

patentUPC-001487

Network System Technologies LLCvsTexas Instruments Incorporated, Texas Instruments Deutschland GmbH, Volkswagen AG, Audi AG

Network System Technologies LLC (NST) brought a patent infringement action before the Local Division Munich concerning EP 1 552 669 B1 against Texas Instruments, Texas Instruments Deutschland, Volkswagen, and Audi. The defendants filed preliminary objections under Rule 19 RoP and applications under Rule 361 RoP, challenging jurisdiction (alleging invalid opt-out withdrawal), NST's standing, the broad scope of allegedly infringing embodiments, and the Court's jurisdiction over UK-related damages. The Court dismissed the Rule 361 applications as manifestly unfounded and partially dismissed the Rule 19 preliminary objections, deferring the residual jurisdictional issues to the main proceeding.

patentUPC-000119

Pinterest Germany GmbH, Pinterest Europe Ltd, Pinterest Inc.vsNagravision Sàrl

This is a procedural order from the Local Division Munich concerning an application under R. 323 RoP to change the language of proceedings from German to English in a patent infringement action. The Pinterest defendants sought the change on grounds of fairness, arguing English was their common working language and the language of the patent. Nagravision opposed, citing its Swiss domicile and Pinterest's German market activity. The President of the Court of First Instance granted the application, ordering the proceedings to be conducted in English without specific translation arrangements.

patentUPC-000986

Dainese S.p.A.vsAlpinestars S.p.A. and Others

This is a procedural order from the Milan Local Division of the Unified Patent Court concerning Dainese S.p.A.'s application under Rule 262A RoP for protection of confidential information in connection with a partial withdrawal of its infringement action. The dispute centered on Exhibit 70, a settlement agreement between Dainese and Defendant 4 (Horizon Moto 95 - Maxxess Cergy), which Dainese sought to keep confidential from other defendants and third parties. The Court granted confidentiality protection, restricted access to specific named individuals from Defendants 1 and 6, and ordered Dainese to file English translations of the documents.

patentUPC-000479

MediaTek Germany GmbHvsHuawei Technologies Co. Ltd

Unified Patent Court decision.

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