REGISTER now: Sweden Event - A new era for innovation: AI, the UPC and global patent opportunities
​

Paris local division revokes DexCom patent

​
Darren Smyth
​
July 5, 2024
Additional information
Chevron icon
Info
Tags
UPC
Recent cases
Infringement
Inventive step
Jurisdiction
Revocation
Table of contents
Chevron icon
Table of contents
  • Toc Heading
  • Toc Heading

DexCom, Inc. v Abbott Laboratories and nine other Abbott entities (UPC_CFI_230/2023)

Decision of 4 July 2024 (ORD_37297/2024) [1]

The second decision on the merits from the UPC, following just a day after the first, comes from the Paris Local Division, in a case heard in the English language.

DexCom asserted EP3435866, concerning a glucose monitoring system, against Abbott. The patent was asserted in respect of all the states that had ratified the UPC Agreement, with the exception of acts committed by three of the named defendants [2], which were already the subject of infringement proceedings and a revocation action nationally in Germany. (There was also parallel litigation in UK, where the patent was revoked by consent).

Abbott counterclaimed for revocation. DexCom argued that under the lis pendens rules of Art. 31 UPCA, and Art. 71c(2), Art. 30(2) of EU Regulation 1215/2012 ("Brussels I recast"), the UPC should decline jurisdiction with respect to Germany, since there was already a German revocation action pending.

The court considered that since there was not identity of parties between the UPC action and the German actions, there was no mandatory stay as provided by Art 29 of Regulation 1215/2012; the actions were considered to be "related actions" according to Art 30 of Regulation 1215/2012 and so a stay was discretionary. Since the Paris court was in a position to render judgment, and the German revocation action was not scheduled for an oral hearing until 29 January 2025, the court considered that it was not in the interests of the proper administration of justice either to decline jurisdiction in favour of the German national court or to stay proceedings pending the decision of the national court. It therefore decided to maintain jurisdiction to rule on the validity of the entire European patent, including its German part.

Turning to the validity of the patent, the court considered that the claimed invention represented an obvious modification of the prior art US 2015/0205947 (D1; Berman) in view of the common general knowledge. A first auxiliary request was considered not to cure the lack of inventive step, and a second auxiliary request was considered to involve added matter.

Having decided that the patent was invalid, the court did not rule on whether it was in fact infringed.

Accordingly, the court ordered that the patent be revoked for all 17 UPC member states, dismissed the infringement action, and ordered DexCom to pay the costs of the proceedings. It did not however allow Abbott's request for an interim award of costs of €100,000.

[1] https://www.unified-patent-court.org/en/node/900

[2] Abbott Laboratories, Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. and Abbott GmbH

Recent Case Reports

See all Case Reports

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.
​
Court of Appeal affirms interpretation of product-by-process features in claims, and clarifies applicable law pre-June 2023
29 September 2026
The Court of Appeal confirmed that product-by-process features in a product claim limit the claim only where the specified process imparts characteristics that can be achieved solely by that process. It also clarified the law applicable to acts occurring before 1 June 2023, holding that UPC law may apply to ongoing infringement for injunctive relief, whereas damages for acts completed before that date are governed by national law, and that claims for provisional protection remain governed by national law.
​
Appeal reveals tricky deadlines for orders contained in decisions
29 September 2026
The Court of Appeal held that where a “privileged order” under Rule 220(1)(c), such as an order relating to the production of evidence under Article 59 UPCA and Rule 190 RoP, is contained within a decision on the merits, a 15 day appeal deadline for that order applies, separate from the substantive appeal deadline. Appeals challenging such orders after that deadline are inadmissible, and parties cannot circumvent the appeal rules by re-filing substantially the same request in the appeal proceedings.
​