Short Summary
An unnamed applicant sought access to the case file of UPC_CFI_830/2025, a provisional measures action brought by Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. against MicroTech Medical and six other defendants concerning EP 3960072. The applicant claimed to represent an unnamed competitor in the continuous glucose measurement (CGM) device field needing a freedom-to-operate analysis. The Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court (Local Division The Hague) denied the application, finding the applicant had not demonstrated a sufficiently specific interest to override the integrity of the fast-tracked proceedings.
Detailed Summary
This order concerns an application under Rule 262.1(b) of the Rules of Procedure for access to the case file of UPC_CFI_830/2025, a separate action for provisional measures instituted by Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. against MicroTech Medical (Hangzhou) Co. Ltd. and six other defendants. The patent at issue in those underlying proceedings is EP 3960072, owned by Abbott Diabetes Care Inc., which relates to the field of continuous glucose measurement (CGM) devices.
The applicant, whose identity was redacted in the public order, sought access to the file of the provisional measures proceedings. The applicant stated that he acts as the authorized representative of a client who is a competitor of the claimant in the CGM device field. The applicant's client was reportedly assessing the possibility of introducing a CGM product onto the European market and required an informed freedom-to-operate (FTO) analysis. The applicant therefore wished to understand the scope and procedural status of the patent asserted in the proceedings, as well as the arguments advanced by the parties, with particular interest in the validity of the patent.
The parties to the underlying proceedings opposed the access request. The Court, presided over by Judge Edger Brinkman, refused the application. The Court reasoned that it was insufficiently clear whether the applicant had a specific interest as required under the applicable standard, referencing the Court of Appeal's decision in Ocado v AutoStore (UPC_CoA_404/2023 APL_584498/2023). The Court noted that neither the Court nor the parties involved had any way to verify which unnamed competitor the applicant represented. Furthermore, given that the underlying proceedings were for preliminary measures and were expected to conclude within a few weeks, the Court found it unclear why the applicant's claimed interest was so urgent as not to wait for the proceedings to end. The Court also emphasized that granting access would impose a burden on both the Court and the parties in an already fast-tracked procedure in which documents had been filed only days earlier, and that this burden outweighed the applicant's interest in light of the integrity of the proceedings.
The Court accordingly denied the application. The order was delivered on 17 December 2025, with information noting that an application for review could be lodged within 15 days of service pursuant to Rule 333 RoP.
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 XXX vs Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. / MicroTech Medical (Hangzhou) Co. Ltd., et al. is valuable context for structuring arguments or assessing risk in similar proceedings.
Related Cases
Boehringer Ingelheim International GmbHvsZentiva Portugal, Lda
Boehringer Ingelheim filed an infringement action on the merits against Zentiva Portugal concerning European Patent EP1830843 (relating to nintedanib for idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis), following the grant of provisional measures by the Court of Appeal. After the patent expired on 21 December 2025, Boehringer requested disposal of the action under R. 360 RoP as devoid of purpose. The Court of First Instance (Lisbon Local Division) granted the request, finding the action moot, and ordered each party to bear its own costs.
AMPERSAND Partnerschaft von Rechtsanwälten mbB (Application under Rule 262 RoP in Panasonic Holdings CorporationvsGuangdong OPPO Mobile Telecommunications Corp. Ltd. and OROPE Germany GmbH)
This is a decision by the Local Chamber Mannheim concerning an application under Rule 262 of the Rules of Procedure for access to court file documents in a patent infringement case (EP 2 568 724) between Panasonic Holdings Corporation and OPPO/OROPE. The applicant law firm AMPERSAND sought access to all pleadings and evidence, citing general and scientific information interests. The court granted limited access, ordering the plaintiff to provide redacted versions of specified documents on an encrypted data carrier or data room, while rejecting the broader request.
Abbott Diabetes Care Inc.vsSinocare Inc. and A.Menarini Diagnostics s.r.l.
Abbott Diabetes Care sought provisional measures against Sinocare and Menarini alleging infringement of European patent EP 3 988 471 (relating to displays for a medical device) by Sinocare's GlucoMen iCan continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) system, which Menarini distributes in Europe. The Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court (Local Division The Hague) dismissed the application, finding that the defendants' CGM system more likely than not does not infringe independent claims 1 and 14 of the patent because event data icons are not included in the timeline graph as required by the claims. Abbott was ordered to pay EUR 400,000 as an interim award of costs.
Atlas Global Technologies GmbHvsTP-LINK Corporation Pte. Ltd. and Others
Procedural order from the Local Chamber Düsseldorf of the Unified Patent Court concerning European Patent EP 3 186 937. With the consent of the parties, the court granted the application of Defendants 2 to 4 (TP-LINK Enterprises Netherlands B.V., TP-Link Deutschland GmbH, and TP-Link Enterprises France) dated April 17, 2025, and ordered the stay of the proceedings pursuant to Rule 295 lit. a) of the Rules of Procedure.
Oerlikon Textile GmbH & CO KGvsBhagat Textile Engineers
Unified Patent Court decision.
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.