Abbott Diabetes Care v Sinocare (CoA, 17 April 2026)

Dhenne Avocats · 10 October 2026

Our analysis

Summary

By order of 17 April 2026 (UPC_CoA_901/2025), the Court of Appeal holds admissible and well founded the appeal brought by Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. against the order of The Hague Local Division of 22 October 2025, which had refused its application for provisional measures against Sinocare Inc. and A. Menarini Diagnostics s.r.l. based on EP 3 988 471 (a glucose monitoring system), and holds the respondents’ cross-appeal on urgency inadmissible (paragraph 19). At the provisional stage, the Court finds indirect infringement of claims 1 and 14 and that the patent is more likely than not valid. Two headnotes set out points of principle: a feature cannot be left out of the inventive step assessment merely because it is non-technical, and only an adversely affected party may cross-appeal, a cross-appeal being inadmissible if its sole aim is to change reasoning favourable to it. It set aside the order and granted a provisional injunction for the UPC States except Romania, backed by penalty payments.

Facts and procedure

Abbott applied to The Hague Local Division on 27 June 2025, targeting the GlucoMen iCan device and its app. The patent, a divisional, was maintained in amended form by the EPO Opposition Division, which continued the proceedings of its own motion after the opposition was withdrawn (paragraph 2). On 22 October 2025, the local division accepted jurisdiction and found the application timely but rejected infringement because the event data icons were not on the timeline graph. It ordered Abbott to pay an interim costs award of EUR 400,000 (paragraph 12). Abbott appealed on 6 November 2025 and the respondents cross-appealed on urgency (paragraph 13). The hearing took place on 26 March 2026.

The applicable law

At the provisional stage, the Court asks whether infringement and validity are more likely than not. The claim is construed under Article 69 EPC and its Protocol. Validity is examined for added matter (Article 123(2) EPC) and inventive step, and infringement under Articles 25 and 26 UPCA. Appeals and cross-appeals are governed by Rules 220.1 and 237, and delay by Rule 211.4.

Question

Does feature 1.13(c) require the event icons to appear on the graph line, may non-technical features be disregarded in assessing inventive step, and may a party that prevailed on urgency cross-appeal to challenge the reasoning?

Decision

Event icons may appear anywhere on the graph provided the time of the event can be identified, and the GlucoMen iCan graph embodies the feature (paragraphs 54 to 68). Since the respondents do not sell the receiver unit, only indirect infringement of claims 1 and 14 is found (paragraphs 61 and 154 to 158). No added matter is shown, and feature group 1.13 contributes to technical character through its interaction with the other features, no combination starting from Saffer rendering it obvious (paragraphs 83 to 153). Urgency runs from 24 April 2025, eight weeks spent on samples, market investigation and awaiting the opposition decision remain acceptable (paragraphs 163 to 173). The measure is necessary given the risk of lasting price erosion in the reimbursement market, and the respondents did not substantiate their own harm (paragraphs 179 to 188). The injunction, worded generally, excludes the Sinocare iCan i3 and its app, tolerated since 2023, and Romania, with no grace period. Penalties may reach EUR 10,000 per violation or, at Abbott’s choice, EUR 100,000 per day (paragraphs 190 to 199). Price information and delivery up were refused (paragraphs 200 to 203). The respondents bear the costs of both instances, repay those paid under the order set aside and pay an interim award of EUR 11,000, security for enforcement was refused (paragraphs 204 to 207 and operative part).

Key points for practice

• A non-technical feature cannot be set aside at the outset: its interaction with the other features must be assessed (headnote and paragraphs 112 to 114).
• Only an adversely affected party may cross-appeal. A cross-appeal aimed solely at changing favourable reasoning is inadmissible (headnote and paragraph 19).
• The supplier of an app and a sensor may be an indirect infringer of a system whose receiver unit it does not sell (paragraphs 61 and 154 to 158).
• A patentee who tolerated a closely related product for years cannot extend the provisional injunction to that product (paragraph 192).
• Practical point: documenting the purchase and analysis of samples, and the market investigation, can justify eight weeks of preparation (paragraphs 165 to 173).

Provisions applied

Agreement on a Unified Patent Court

Arts 25, 26, 33(1)(a), 62, 67, 69 and 82(2)

Rules of Procedure

Rules 206.2, 211, 212.1, 213, 220.1, 237, 352 and 354.3

European Patent Convention

Art. 52(2), Art. 69, Art. 76(1), Art. 123(2), and the Protocol on the Interpretation of Article 69

Other provisions

Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012, Arts. 7(2) and 71b, Regulation (EU) No 1257/2012, Art. 18(2)

Case law cited

NanoString v 10x Genomics, Court of Appeal, 26 February 2024 (UPC_CoA_335/2023), VusionGroup v Hanshow, Court of Appeal, 13 May 2024 (UPC_CoA_1/2024), Abbott v Sibio, Court of Appeal, 14 February 2025 (UPC_CoA_382/2024), Amgen v Sanofi, Court of Appeal, 25 November 2025 (UPC_CoA_528/2024), Philips v Belkin, Court of Appeal, 3 October 2025, Boehringer Ingelheim v Zentiva, Court of Appeal, 13 August 2025 (UPC_CoA_446/2025) and Barco v Yealink, Court of Appeal, 28 November 2025 (UPC_CoA_317/2025), on delay and interim costs, Biolitec v Light Guide, Court of Appeal, 24 February 2025 (UPC_CoA_540/2024), Mammut v Ortovox, Court of Appeal, 25 September 2024 (UPC_CoA_182/2024), EOFlow v Insulet, Court of Appeal, 30 April 2025 (UPC_CoA_768/2024), Sumi v Syngenta, Court of Appeal, 3 March 2025 (UPC_CoA_523/2024), Sinocare v Abbott, Court of Appeal, 30 March 2026 (UPC_CoA_899/2025), Knaus v Yellow, Court of Appeal, 21 May 2025 (UPC_CoA_365/2025), EPO Enlarged Board of Appeal, G 1/24 and G 1/19.

Related decisions

• Abbott Diabetes Care v Sinocare, 22 October 2025, The Hague Local Division order under appeal.
• Sinocare v Abbott Diabetes Care, 30 March 2026, parallel appeal concerning EP 4 344 633.

Prepared by Dhenne Avocats from the official decision, consulted on 10 October 2026. The database is updated every week, on Friday. Only the official text is authoritative.