Abbott Diabetes Care v A. Menarini Diagnostics (CFI, 1 August 2025)

Date	1 August 2025
Court	CFI
Division	The Hague (NL) Local Division
Type of action	Generic application
Registry reference	App_33807/2025 · ORD_33931/2025
Parties	A.Menarini Diagnostics s.r.l.

Official decision (PDF) · UPC registry entry

Dhenne Avocats represents claimants and defendants in European patent disputes before the Unified Patent Court, including the Paris divisions.

Contact the firm

Dhenne Avocats · 10 October 2026

Our analysis

Summary

By order of 1 August 2025, given in both proceedings UPC_CFI_587/2025 and UPC_CFI_624/2025 (ACT_30994/2025 and ACT_32414/2025), the judge rapporteur of The Hague Local Division dismissed the applications by A. Menarini Diagnostics, also acting for Sinocare, to postpone the hearing set for 3 September 2025 on Abbott Diabetes Care’s applications for provisional measures based on EP 3 988 471 and EP 4 344 633. The order is a reminder that the provisional measures timetable is not open to negotiation.

Question

Can a defendant to an application for provisional measures obtain a postponement of the hearing by relying on the complexity of the case and the practice followed in other cases?

Decision

The power to order an oral hearing and to invite the defendant to lodge an Objection (Rule 209.1 RoP) is guided by the factors in Rule 209.2 RoP, and the hearing must be set as soon as possible (Rule 210.1 RoP, paragraph 3). A postponement is conceivable only in very special circumstances, none of which are asserted. The arguments based on complexity and practice in other cases are not substantiated (paragraph 8). Both defendants were aware of the applications: Menarini was served on 16 July 2025 and, as exclusive distributor, probably informed Sinocare (paragraph 9). The judge keeps the hearing date and sets 18 August 2025 for the Objection, which must not exceed the length of the relevant parts of the applications (paragraph 12), with Abbott allowed a short reply by 25 August 2025 if invalidity is raised (paragraph 13).

Key points for practice

Practical point: a defendant to provisional measures must organise itself from service onwards, only a very special, properly substantiated circumstance can justify postponing the hearing.

Provisions applied

Rules of Procedure: Rules 9, 206, 209 and 210.1
Case law cited: Mannheim Local Division, order of 17 July 2025 (UPC_CFI_500/2025).

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.

Going further

Lexicon: Written procedure (UPC), Court fees and costs (UPC).

Source and translations

Official source: Unified Patent Court registry link recorded in the record
Original language: not recorded
Translation available: no translation recorded the firm’s French record is a summary, not a translation
Date checked: not recorded

Only the official text is authoritative. A machine translation is never presented as official, republishing a third-party document requires a verified basis in rights, and a link to the source is preferred.

Follow this case

Proceedings, related decisions, appeals, parties and patents as recorded in the registry and in the Dhenne Avocats corpus. Each link states its source.

Proceedings

No case number recorded in this record.

Parties

claimantA.Menarini Diagnostics s.r.lnormalised name: A. Menarini Diagnostics s.r.l9 decisions in the corpus Follow this party

Exact name as it appears in the record, group affiliation only where sourced and dated.

Decisions in the same proceedings and documented appeals

No other decision in the corpus bears the same case number, and no appeal is documented in the corpus to date.

What the record states

Nature of the act: Generic application
Outcome (Dhenne Avocats summary): Les demandes de report de l'audience de mesures provisoires sont rejetées, faute de circonstances très particulières, et le calendrier de l'opposition et de la réplique est fixé.
Appeal: No appeal documented in the corpus, this does not mean that no appeal was lodged.
Instance: First-instance decision, whether it has become final is not recorded.

Patents mentioned

EP 3 988 471 mentioned in: Dhenne Avocats analysis Follow this patent
EP 4 344 633 mentioned in: Dhenne Avocats analysis Follow this patent

Scope: Dhenne Avocats corpus. Registry-based links are marked “official number”; links derived from the analyses are marked as such. An erroneous link can be withdrawn without deleting any record.

Patents and standards

Publication	Role in the dispute	Family	Standard and declaration	Pool	Sources
`EP 3 988 471`	Mentioned in the analysis (role not qualified) Also mentioned in 4 other decision(s): Abbott Diabetes Care v Sinocare (CoA, 17 April 2026) · Abbott Diabetes Care v Sinocare (CFI, 22 October 2025) · Abbott Diabetes Care v Dexcom (CFI, 31 July 2024) · Abbott Diabetes Care v Dexcom (CFI, 12 February 2024)	not recorded	not recorded	not recorded	Espacenet links not checked mentioned in: Dhenne Avocats analysis
`EP 4 344 633`	Mentioned in the analysis (role not qualified) Also mentioned in 4 other decision(s): Abbott Diabetes Care v Sinocare (CFI, 19 May 2026) · Abbott Diabetes Care v Sinocare (CoA, 17 April 2026) · Sinocare v Abbott Diabetes Care (CoA, 30 March 2026) · Abbott Diabetes Care v Sinocare (CFI, 17 October 2025)	not recorded	not recorded	not recorded	Espacenet links not checked mentioned in: Dhenne Avocats analysis

The statuses “asserted in litigation”, “declared essential”, “listed by a pool” and “essentiality examined by a court” are distinct and may coexist. Validity, infringement and technical essentiality are different questions. Scope: patents cited in the decisions of the Dhenne Avocats corpus, with no essentiality score or prediction.

Receive an alert

Weekly summary of new records and substantive updates matching what you follow. Address confirmed by email, unsubscribe at any time, one email per week even where several of your follows match.