DexCom, Inc. v. Abbott Laboratories and associated entities (including Abbott Logistics B.V., Abbott Diabetes Care Inc., etc.)

ORD_59318/2024

In a procedural order concerning EP 4 026 488, the UPC Local Division in Düsseldorf decided to proceed with a joint hearing of the infringement action brought by DexCom against Abbott and its subsidiaries, alongside the counterclaim for revocation. This decision prioritizes efficiency, ensuring that both validity and infringement are assessed under a single, uniform interpretation by the same judicial panel. The court also mandated the allocation of a technically qualified judge (TQJ) to manage the case effectively.

Jurisdiction
European UPC
Court
Düsseldorf (DE) Local Division
Case Number
ORD_59318/2024
Judge(s)
Thomas acting as judge

What the Court Held — Ratio Decidendi

The Düsseldorf Local Division exercised its discretion under Rule 37.2 RoP to decide early on how to proceed with Art. 33(3) UPCA, opting for a joint hearing of the infringement action and the counterclaim for revocation. This decision was made primarily for reasons of procedural efficiency, allowing both validity and infringement issues to be decided based on a uniform interpretation by the same panel.

Practitioner Note

This case demonstrates the evidentiary and procedural standards applied in patent matters before Düsseldorf (DE) Local Division. Understanding the court's reasoning in DexCom, Inc. vs Abbott Laboratories and associated entities (including Abbott Logistics B.V., Abbott Diabetes Care Inc., etc.) is valuable context for structuring arguments or assessing risk in similar proceedings.

Related Cases

patentApp_13067/2025

BioMarin Pharmaceutical Inc.vsAscendis Pharma A/S; Ascendis Pharma Growth Disorders A/S

In this procedural order, the UPC Local Division Munich rejected the preliminary objection raised by Ascendis Pharma against BioMarin Pharmaceutical Inc.'s infringement action concerning European patent EP 3 175 863. The Court ruled that BioMarin had adequately established jurisdiction and competence by demonstrating alleged infringing acts within Germany. Consequently, the proceedings will continue to the main substantive phase, where the legal characterization of the disputed acts will be examined.

patentORD_44084/2024

NEC CorporationvsTCT Mobile Europe SAS, TCL Deutschland GmbH & Co. KG, TCT Mobile Germany GmbH, TCL Industrial Holdings Co., Ltd., TCL Overseas Marketing Ltd., TCL Communication Technology Holdings Ltd., TCL Operations Polska Sp. z.o.o

In this preliminary procedural order, the UPC Court addressed an issue of service of process in a patent infringement case brought by NEC Corporation against several TCL entities. The core dispute revolved around proving that Defendant 2 (TCL Industrial Holdings Co., Ltd.) had properly received the claim filed under EP 3 057 321. The court ultimately accepted the defendant's own statement as valid proof of service, thereby clearing a procedural hurdle and allowing the main infringement action to proceed.

patentORD_69088/2024

MSG Maschinenbau GmbHvsEJP Maschinen GmbH

This UPC costs determination case involved the aftermath of a patent infringement and revocation action concerning EP 3 225 320. The core dispute centered on the reasonableness and necessity of legal fees claimed by the defendant, EJP Maschinen GmbH, for both the infringement suit and the counterclaim for revocation. The court ultimately ruled in favor of the respondent regarding costs, setting a specific amount payable by the claimant, MSG Maschinenbau GmbH.

patentORD_15978/2025

Fujifilm CorporationvsKodak Graphic Communications GmbH, Kodak Holding GmbH, Kodak GmbH

Fujifilm successfully sued Kodak entities for infringing EP 3 511 174 B1, a patent covering lithographic printing plate technology. The UPC Local Division in Mannheim found infringement, leading to significant remedies including the mandatory destruction and recall of the contested products (SONORA XTRA-3). Although the defendants' counterclaim for revocation was dismissed, the case highlights the court's willingness to grant strong injunctive relief against infringing parties.

patentApp_66588/2024

Headwater Research LLCvsSamsung Electronics GmbH, Samsung Electronics France S.A.S, and Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd.

This procedural order in the UPC case involving Headwater Research LLC and Samsung Electronics addresses several key motions, including claim amendments and confidentiality. The Court granted Headwater leave to amend its claims, a crucial step allowing the claimant to adapt its legal strategy based on the defendant's recent submissions. While other requests were dismissed, this decision keeps the infringement and revocation proceedings alive as they move toward an Interim Conference.

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