Abbott Logistics v DexCom (CFI, 11 October 2024)

Date	11 October 2024
Court	CFI
Division	Paris (FR) Local Division
Type of action	Amend Document
Registry reference	App_53731/2024 · ORD_53788/2024
Parties	Abbott Diabetes Care Inc.

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 11 October 2024 (UPC_CFI_395/2023, ACT_583778/2023, ORD_53788/2024), the judge-rapporteur of the Paris Local Division (C. Lignières) dismissed the application by the Abbott companies, defendants in DexCom’s infringement action on EP 3 831 282, to amend their case to take account of version 4.12.0 of the LibreLinkUp app, released on 26 September 2024. The order shows that diligence is not enough: close to the hearing, the prejudice to the other side prevails.

Question

May a party, under Rule 263 RoP, introduce a new version of its product one month before the hearing, given that both conditions of Rule 263.2 RoP must be met?

Decision

The first condition is met: Abbott was not obliged to disclose commercial information on a product launch to a competitor any earlier. The second is not: DexCom would have to gather evidence on the new version, analyse it and build new arguments within a few days, the oral hearing being set for 30 October 2024. The judge relies on efficiency, speed and the front-loaded nature of the proceedings (Preamble, points 2, 5 and 7). Fairness is preserved: Abbott may bring an action for a declaration of non-infringement (Rule 61 RoP) for its new product and may argue at the enforcement stage that the new version does not infringe.

Key points for practice

Practical point: a defendant that changes its product during the proceedings should anticipate Rule 263 RoP, otherwise, only an action for a declaration of non-infringement or argument at the enforcement stage remain available.

Provisions applied

Rules of Procedure: Preamble, points 2, 5 and 7, Rules 61, 263, 264 and 333
Case law cited: NanoString v President and Fellows of Harvard College, Munich Local Division, 25 July 2024 (UPC_CFI_252/2023)

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

claimantAbbott Diabetes Care Inc.36 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: Amend Document
Outcome (Dhenne Avocats summary): La juge rapporteure rejette la demande d'Abbott de modifier sa défense pour une nouvelle version de son application : si la demande ne pouvait être faite plus tôt, elle gênerait déraisonnablement DexCom à l'approche de l'audience.
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 3 831 282 mentioned in: Dhenne Avocats analysis Follow this patent

Related decisions cited in the analyses

NanoString v President and Fellows of Harvard College (CFI, 25 July 2024) cited in this record

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 3 831 282`	Mentioned in the analysis (role not qualified) Also mentioned in 4 other decision(s): DexCom v Abbott Diagnostics (CFI, 11 December 2024) · DexCom v Abbott Laboratories (CoA, ORD_3985/2025, 24 January 2025) · DexCom v Abbott Logistics (CFI, 25 November 2024) · DexCom v Abbott Laboratories (CFI, 12 February 2024)	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.