Short Summary
Abbott Diabetes Care Inc., the proprietor of European patent EP 3 831 283 relating to an on-body glucose sensor device, applied for provisional measures including a preliminary injunction against Sibio Technology Limited and Umedwings Netherlands B.V. The defendants did not oppose the facts presented. The Court of First Instance denied the application, holding that on the balance of probabilities the patent would more likely than not be held invalid in proceedings on the merits due to added matter extending beyond the content of the application as filed.
Detailed Summary
Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. ("Abbott"), a company based in Alameda, California, United States, is the proprietor of European patent number EP 3 831 283 (the "patent"). The patent concerns an on-body device for glucose monitoring, comprising a glucose sensor assembly with a proximal section and a distal tail section, an enclosure with a top portion and a base portion configured to be adhered to the skin surface by an adhesive patch, and sensor electronics positioned within the enclosure. The patent contains 26 claims directed to various embodiments of this on-body glucose sensor device, including features relating to the enclosure being a single integral unit, over-molded thermoplastic construction, snap-fit mechanisms, welding, and adhesive coupling between the top and base portions.
Abbott filed an application for a preliminary injunction and other provisional measures on 20 March 2024 under Rule 206 of the Rules of Procedure against two defendants: Sibio Technology Limited, a company based in Kowloon, Hong Kong, and Umedwings Netherlands B.V., a company based in Rijswijk, the Netherlands. Both defendants were represented by the same counsel. The proceedings were conducted in English before the Local Division The Hague, with a full panel composed of Presiding Judge and Judge-Rapporteur Edger Brinkman, legally qualified judges Petri Rinkinen and Margot Kokke, and technically qualified judge Renaud Fulconis.
The application sought provisional measures in relation to the alleged infringement of EP 3 831 283 by the defendants. The facts presented in the application were largely uncontested by the defendants, as they did not oppose the factual submissions. The central legal issue before the Court concerned the validity of the patent, specifically whether the patent as granted contained added matter extending beyond the content of the application as filed, which would render it invalid.
& Analysis
The Court evaluated the application for provisional measures and assessed the likelihood of the patent being held valid in subsequent proceedings on the merits. The key consideration was whether the patent complied with the requirement that the scope of the patent as granted must not extend beyond the content of the application as filed (the prohibition on added matter). After examining the patent claims and comparing them with the original application documents, the Court concluded that on the balance of probabilities, the patent would more likely than not be held invalid in proceedings on the merits due to added matter.
Final Order & Ruling
The Court of First Instance of the Local Division The Hague issued its order on 19 June 2024, denying the application for provisional measures. The headnote of the order states: "Application for provisional measures denied. On the balance of probabilities patent will more likely than not be held to be invalid in proceedings on the merits, due to added matter." The keywords identified for the case are "provisional measures; validity; added matter."
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 Umedwings Netherlands B.V., Sibio Technology Limited vs Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. is valuable context for structuring arguments or assessing risk in similar proceedings.
Related Cases
Rematec GmbH & Co KGvsEurope Forestry B.V.
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court refused leave to appeal against an order of the Local Division Mannheim that had rejected Rematec's two cost determination applications as time-barred and dismissed its applications for reinstatement. The Court held that an application for leave to appeal under Rule 157 in conjunction with Rule 221 of the Rules of Procedure is inadmissible insofar as it is directed against the rejection of a reinstatement application, since Rule 320.7 expressly precludes appeals against orders on reinstatement. The Court also rejected Europe Forestry's request to impose costs on Rematec, noting that cost reimbursement is generally not available in cost determination proceedings.
Rematec GmbH & Co KGvsEurope Forestry B.V.
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court refused leave to appeal against an order of the Local Division Mannheim that had rejected Rematec's two cost determination applications as time-barred and denied reinstatement into the missed deadlines. The Court of Appeal held that an application for leave to appeal under R. 157 and R. 221 RoP is inadmissible insofar as it challenges the rejection of a reinstatement application, because R. 320.7 RoP expressly excludes appeals against orders on reinstatement. No arguable grounds for leave to appeal were identified regarding the rejection of retroactive deadline extension requests.
Promosome LLC and The Scripps Research InstitutevsBioNTech SE, BioNTech Manufacturing GmbH, BioNTech Manufacturing Marburg GmbH, BioNTech Innovative Manufacturing Services GmbH, BioNTech Europe GmbH, Pfizer Manufacturing Belgium NV, Pfizer SAS, Pfizer AB, and Pfizer, Inc.
This order of the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court concerns three appeals (UPC-CoA-146/2026, UPC-CoA-147/2026, and UPC-CoA-148/2026) relating to EP 2 401 365. The appellants, Promosome LLC and The Scripps Research Institute, sought a one-month extension of the deadline for lodging their Statements of grounds of appeal, citing heavy professional workload and school holiday periods. Both groups of respondents (BioNTech and Pfizer entities) opposed the extension. The Court of Appeal rejected the applications, holding that the circumstances relied upon were foreseeable and did not justify an extension of the procedural time period.
Kodak Holding GmbH, Kodak GmbH, Kodak Graphic Communications GmbHvsFujifilm Corporation
This is a procedural order from the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court concerning European Patent EP 3 511 174. The Respondents (Kodak entities) requested a one-week extension of the deadline to file written comments on the Applicant's (Fujifilm's) request for rehearing. The Court granted the extension until 23 October 2026, finding the request admissible and well-founded because the Applicant had consented, the extension was brief, and the Respondents' representatives had been occupied preparing for a related oral hearing before the Düsseldorf Regional Court that was postponed shortly before the application was filed.
Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd.vsSercomm Italia SRL
This is a procedural order from the Local Chamber Munich of the Unified Patent Court concerning alternative service of process on Sercomm Italia SRL in a patent infringement action involving European Patent EP 3 611 989 B1. After multiple failed attempts to serve the Italian defendant at its registered business address, the rapporteur had previously ordered under Rule 275.2 RoP that the prior service measures constituted valid service. The present order addresses the fact that notification of that earlier order was unsuccessful and directs additional means of notification to ensure the defendant is informed.
Network System Technologies LLCvsQualcomm Incorporated, Qualcomm Technologies, Inc., Qualcomm Germany GmbH
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court rejected Network System Technologies LLC's (NST) applications for re-establishment of rights under R. 320 RoP. NST had sought to revive its late-filed appeals against the rejection of its R. 190 Applications (production of evidence) in three infringement proceedings against Qualcomm before the Munich Local Division. The Court held that NST failed to demonstrate that all due care had been taken, as the circumstances cited did not constitute exceptional circumstances or excusable error under the precedent set in AIM v Supponor.
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.