Executive Summary
In a provisional measures case concerning an on-body glucose sensor device (EP3831283), the UPC Court of First Instance denied the application filed by Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. The core finding was that the patent likely suffers from 'added matter,' making it probable that the claims would be invalidated during full proceedings. This decision not only blocked the preliminary injunction but also mandated that the applicant bear the costs of the current proceedings.
What the Court Held — Ratio Decidendi
The court ruled that given the issue of 'added matter,' it was more probable than not that Claim 1 (and its dependent claims) would be held invalid during full infringement proceedings. Consequently, the request for preliminary injunctions and provisional measures was denied.
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 Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. vs Sibio Technology Limited is valuable context for structuring arguments or assessing risk in similar proceedings.
Related Cases
QUANTIFICARE S.A.vsCanfield Scientific, Inc., Canfield Scientific GmbH, Canfield Scientific Europe B.V., Canfield Scientific s.r.l., ESTHETEC SAS
In UPC case UPC_CFI_559/2024, the Local Chamber of Düsseldorf issued a procedural order regarding EP 3 156 843 B1. The court utilized its discretion to streamline the litigation process by deciding early that it would handle both the infringement claim brought by QUANTIFICARE S.A. and the counterclaim for revocation filed by Canfield Scientific and others simultaneously. This decision aims to ensure a unified legal interpretation of the patent claims while maximizing procedural efficiency.
TELEFONAKTIEBOLAGET LM ERICSSONvsASUSTEK COMPUTER INC
This procedural order in the UPC case involving Ericsson and Asustek sets the stage for a complex patent dispute. The parties have agreed to proceed with both an infringement action by Ericsson and a counterclaim for revocation by Asustek. The Court has scheduled the interim conference and the main oral hearing, indicating that the case is moving forward toward substantive arguments.
KNAPP Smart Solutions GmbHvsBecton Dickinson Rowa Germany GmbH
In this procedural order, KNAPP Smart Solutions GmbH sought an extension of deadlines related to its infringement claim against Becton Dickinson Rowa Germany GmbH concerning EP 2 133 289. The court partially granted the request, setting a new deadline for various pleadings until September 5, 2025. This decision highlights the UPC's strict procedural adherence, where extensions must be calculated carefully to avoid conflicts with subsequent hearing dates and rules regarding weekend extensions.
Network System Technologies LLCvsQualcomm Technologies, Inc., Qualcomm Incorporated, Qualcomm Germany GmbH
In this UPC case, Network System Technologies LLC sued Qualcomm for patent infringement concerning EP 1 552 669. The Defendants raised a preliminary objection arguing that an earlier opt-out remained valid and had not been properly withdrawn, thus stripping the UPC of jurisdiction. The Local Division Munich rejected this objection, establishing a clear precedent regarding the formal requirements for withdrawing an opt-out. The ruling confirms that proper registration and adherence to procedural rules are sufficient, even without explicit proof of a power of attorney from the proprietor.
Hanshow Technology Co. LtdvsVusionGroup SA (vormals SES-imagotag SA)
This UPC Appeals Board decision clarifies the procedural rules governing cost determination in complex litigation. The court ruled that even when a party seeks to recover costs related to the appeals process itself, the application must ultimately be filed with and decided by the Court of First Instance. This ruling reinforces the structured nature of the UPC's procedure, ensuring that all final cost determinations follow the established framework (R. 150 ff. VerfO). Practitioners should note this when planning their costs recovery strategy in multi-stage UPC proceedings.
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.