Short Summary
This procedural order concerns an application by DexCom, Inc. under Rules 334(e) and 336 of the Rules of Procedure, seeking to reopen the debate after the oral hearing in an infringement action concerning European patent EP3831282. DexCom sought to introduce a November 6, 2024 decision of the Munich Regional Court concerning the parent patent EP 2,939,158. The Court held the application admissible but dismissed it as not well-grounded, finding the Munich decision concerned a different patent with different features and did not examine validity on the merits.
Detailed Summary
This Procedural Order was issued by the Paris Local Division on November 25, 2024, in infringement action UPC_CFI_395/2023 brought by DexCom, Inc. (applicant) against multiple Abbott entities (respondents), including Abbott Logistics B.V., Abbott Diagnostics GmbH, Abbott France, Abbott Oy, Abbott Diabetes Care Inc., Newyu Inc., Abbott Laboratories, and various other Abbott subsidiaries across Europe. The patent at issue was EP3831282, owned by DexCom.
The oral hearing in the infringement action was held on October 30, 2024, with debates closed on that date and the final decision scheduled for December 11, 2024. On November 12, 2024, DexCom filed an application under Rules 334(e) and 336 of the Rules of Procedure (RoP) requesting the Court to communicate with the parties regarding its wishes to comment on a decision rendered by the Regional Court of Munich on November 6, 2024, concerning the validity and infringement of the German part of European patent EP 2,939,158 by Defendants 1 and 11.
DexCom argued that the Munich Regional Court had ruled that claims 1 and 12 of EP'158 were indirectly infringed by Defendants 1 and 11 and that proceedings should not be stayed because the patent was likely valid. DexCom contended that EP'158 was the parent patent of EP'282, that its independent method claim 1 closely resembled claim 1 of EP'282, and that the subject matter of claim 1 of EP'158 was very similar to claim 1 of Auxiliary Request 2 of EP'282. DexCom concluded that the Munich ruling was relevant because the defendants had adopted the same misconstruction strategy that was dismissed by the Munich court.
Abbott requested the Court to declare the application inadmissible, arguing that Chapter 8 of the RoP regarding case management had no legal basis at this stage since it relates to case management up to the closure of the interim conference but before the oral hearing. Abbott also argued that the Regional Civil Courts did not address the validity of the patent in suit, that EP'282 related to another invention with specific features (such as the invitation scheme) not comprised in claim 1 of EP'158, and that the German decision regarding EP'158 had no relevance to the ongoing EP'282 case.
The Court, presided by Judge Camille Lignières, held that under the UPC Rules of Procedure, case management powers are not limited to the stage ending with the closure of the interim procedure. The Court, and in particular the Presiding Judge, could exercise case management powers after the closure of the interim procedure and even after the oral hearing, as the presiding judge remains in charge of case management under Article 43 UPCA and Chapter 8 of the RoP. Therefore, DexCom's application was declared admissible.
However, the Court found the request not justified because: (1) the Munich decision did not concern the patent at issue in the present case but its parent patent, which disclosed another invention with similar but also different features; and (2) the Regional Court of Munich, seized by an infringement action, did not examine the validity issue on the merits but in the context of a request for a stay regarding pending nullity proceedings before the Federal Patent Court. Consequently, the Court found no justification for an order authorizing the reopening of the debate after the oral hearing.
The final order stated that DexCom's application was admissible but not well-grounded and was dismissed. The order was noted to be reviewable pursuant to Rule 333 RoP.
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 Logistics B.V. and Others is valuable context for structuring arguments or assessing risk in similar proceedings.
Related Cases
NEC CorporationvsTCL Deutschland GmbH & Co. KG, TCL Industrial Holdings Co., Ltd., TCT Mobile Germany GmbH, TCT Mobile Europe SAS, and TCL Operations Polska Sp. z.o.o
NEC Corporation filed a patent infringement action against several TCL entities concerning European Patent EP 3 057 321 before the Local Division Munich. The sole issue addressed in this order was whether proper service had been effected on Defendant 2 (TCL Industrial Holdings Co., Ltd.), which is domiciled in China. The Court held that service was validly completed on 11 May 2024, accepting the defendant's own statement as proof of service.
UERAN Technology LLCvsXiaomi Corporation a.o.
Unified Patent Court decision.
Hartmann Packaging A/SvsOmni-Pac Ekco GmbH Verpackungsmittel and Omni-Pac GmbH Verpackungsmittel
This is a procedural order from the Local Chamber Düsseldorf of the Unified Patent Court concerning European Patent EP 2 755 901 B1, which relates to a display and distribution package for eggs made of fibrous material. The order, issued by Presiding Judge Ronny Thomas on August 21, 2025, concludes the interim proceedings in a combined infringement action and revocation counterclaim between Hartmann Packaging A/S (formerly Brødrene Hartmann A/S) as plaintiff and two Omni-Pac entities as defendants. The court set out its preliminary view on the relevant skilled person, provided detailed feature breakdowns for patent claims 1 and 6, and issued preparatory directions for the oral hearing.
SCANTRUSTvsADVANCED TRACK AND TRACE
Scantrust filed a nullity action before the Central Division of Paris against European patent EP 2 364 485 held by Advanced Track and Trace (ATT), concerning a method and device for authentication of geometric codes. Before the scheduled oral hearing, the parties reached a settlement agreement on 22 September 2025. The court homologated the settlement under Rule 365 of the Rules of Procedure and Article 79 of the UPC Agreement, allowing it to be enforced as a final decision on the merits, while keeping certain details confidential.
LiNA Medical AGvsSchultz Medical (UK) Ltd.
LiNA Medical AG, the registered proprietor of European Patent EP 2 593 025 B1 relating to a disposable laparoscopic morcellator, filed an urgent application before the Düsseldorf Local Division for the preservation of evidence and inspection against Schultz Medical (UK) Ltd. The application sought to inspect and analyze the Defendant's 'MORCELLIX' product being exhibited at the MEDICA trade fair in Düsseldorf, which the Applicant suspected of being a slavish copy of its LiNA Xcise™ product. The Court granted the application, ordering an inspection and evidence preservation procedure to be carried out by an independent expert at the Defendant's exhibition booth, subject to confidentiality measures.
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.