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
BAUSSMANN Collated Fasteners GmbHvsRaimund Beck Nageltechnik GmbH
This is a procedural order issued in a nullity action concerning European Patent EP 4 019 790. Following an interlocutory hearing held on July 11, 2025, the presiding judge set the value of the dispute at EUR 500,000, reserved the decision on the admissibility of a particular annex for the oral hearing, and scheduled the oral hearing for October 16, 2025. The order also addressed procedural matters regarding patent amendment requests and the applicable cost ceiling.
Edwards Lifesciences Corporation, 1 Edwards Way, 92614, IrvivsMeril Gmbh, Bornheimer Straße 135-137 - 53119 - Bonn – DE, Meril Life Sciences Pvt Ltd., M1‐M2, Meril Park, Survey No 1
This order was issued by the Local Division Munich of the Unified Patent Court following an interim conference in proceedings concerning the determination of damages for infringement of European Patent No. 3 669 828. Edwards Lifesciences Corporation seeks damages and an order to lay open books against the Meril entities, which were previously found to have infringed the patent with respect to the Myval Transcatheter Heart Valve and the Myval System. The order sets procedural directions for the upcoming oral hearing, including deadlines for submissions, the value of the dispute (15 Mio. EUR), and arrangements for the videoconference hearing scheduled for 10 September 2026.
Maxell, Ltd.vsSamsung Electronics Co., Ltd. a.o.
This is a procedural order from the Local Division Munich of the Unified Patent Court in consolidated proceedings (CFI_196/2025 and CFI_665/2025) concerning European patent EP 2 403 266. The order summarizes the interim conference held on 30 April 2026, addressing case management matters including the value of proceedings, exhibit submissions, confidentiality, limitation of invalidity attacks and auxiliary requests, and scheduling of the oral hearing for 23 July 2026.
Network System Technologies LLCvsTexas Instruments Deutschland GmbH, Texas Instruments Incorporated
This case concerns preliminary objections and requests filed by Volkswagen AG, Audi AG, Texas Instruments Incorporated, and Texas Instruments Deutschland GmbH in an infringement action brought by Network System Technologies LLC regarding European Patent EP 1 552 399 B1 (integrated circuit and method for establishing transactions). Volkswagen and Audi sought dismissal of the infringement action as inadmissible, inconclusive, or manifestly unfounded with respect to certain time periods, embodiments, and damages claims. Texas Instruments sought a declaration that the court lacks international jurisdiction over claims related to the patent's United Kingdom designation, and alternatively requested splitting off proceedings related to UK territory acts.
Align Technology, Inc.vsAngelalign Technology Inc., Angelalign France Technology SASU, Europe Angelalign Technology B.V., Angelalign Technology (Germany) GmbH and Italy Angelalign Technology S.R.L.
This procedural order concerns an application by Align Technology, Inc. under Rule 9.2 of the Rules of Proceedings to disregard late-filed non-infringement arguments raised by the Angelalign defendants in their rejoinder. Align argued that the defendants introduced new non-infringement arguments regarding features 1.3 and 1.3.4 of Claim 1 for the first time in their rejoinder, contrary to the front-loaded nature of the proceedings. The defendants requested dismissal of Align's requests and an opportunity to reply in writing to the disputed paragraphs and exhibits.
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.