REGISTER now: Visser ai webinar - Beyond the ai hype: ai in patent prosecution
​

Paris Local Division Revokes another DexCom Patent

​
Darren Smyth
​
January 22, 2025
Additional information
Chevron icon
Info
Tags
UPC
Table of contents
Chevron icon
Table of contents
  • Toc Heading
  • Toc Heading

DexCom, Inc. v Abbott Laboratories and 13 other Abbott entities UPC_CFI_395/2023

Decision of 11 December (ORD_63909/2024[1])

The second decision on the merits from the UPC came from the Paris Local Division and revoked DexCom's patent EP3435866 asserted against Abbott.[2] This decision is a similar case with a similar outcome.

DexCom asserted its patent EP3831282 against a number of Abbott entities, who counterclaimed for revocation of the patent.

An added matter attack raised for the first time in the rejoinder was deemed late filed and inadmissible. The Court only considered the sole ground raised in the original counterclaim, namely lack of inventive step. On this ground, the Court indeed found that the claims did not involve an inventive step when considered in view of "Valdes" combined with "Goodnow", prior art documents cited in the counterclaim.

Three auxiliary requests presented by DexCom were considered to involve added matter.

Accordingly, the Court ordered the revocation of the patent.

In view of the finding on validity, infringement was not considered.


[1] https://www.unified-patent-court.org/en/node/1319

[2] Reported here: https://eip.com/uk/latest/article/paris_local_division_revokes_dexcom_patent/

Recent Case Reports

See all Case Reports

No language change at Central Division
08 October 2026
Proceedings before the UPC Central Division must be conducted in the language in which the patent was granted. There is no legal basis to change that language. In a revocation action concerning a German-language patent, the Paris Central Division rejected a request to switch the language of proceedings to English, and also rejected a subsidiary request to allow written submissions in English and hold the hearing in English, holding that Article 49(6) UPCA permits no derogation and reflects a deliberate legislative choice.
​
Criteria for obtaining an order to produce evidence under Rule 190
07 October 2026
This appeal judgment clarifies that Rule 190 orders to produce evidence require three cumulative conditions: specificity, necessity and proportionality, and cannot be used for fishing expeditions. The Court of Appeal confirmed that first instance judges enjoy a broad margin of discretion when assessing such requests, and upheld the order requiring production of two fabric samples for ballistic testing. Both the appeal and the cross-appeal were dismissed.
​
Court of Appeal focuses on the technical effect to determine added matter
30 September 2026
The Court of Appeal provided guidance on their approach to assessing added subject matter, highlighting that the technical effect underlying the invention and how the claimed and unclaimed features contribute thereto is central to the analysis.
​