Abbott Diabetes Care v Sibio Technology (CoA, 26 July 2024)

Date	26 July 2024
Court	CoA
Division	Luxembourg (LU)
Type of action	Generic application
Registry reference	App_43560/2024 · ORD_43746/2024
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

In an order of 26 July 2024 (UPC_CoA_382/2024), the presiding judge and judge-rapporteur of the Second Panel of the Court of Appeal rejected Abbott Diabetes Care’s requests to revisit an order of 23 July 2024. That order, made on the application of Sibio Technology Limited and Umedwings Netherlands B.V., left the admissibility of the four auxiliary requests introduced by Abbott on appeal to be decided at the oral hearing and granted the respondents an extension of time to respond. The appeal is directed against the order of the Hague Local Division of 19 June 2024 refusing provisional measures under EP 3 831 283. The order states that the Court of Appeal has not yet decided whether auxiliary requests are allowable in provisional measures proceedings.

Question

Do the arguments put forward by Abbott in an uninvited response justify revisiting the decision to leave the admissibility of its auxiliary requests to the hearing and the extension granted to the respondents?

Decision

Abbott’s arguments did not lead to a different assessment (paragraph 5). Whether auxiliary requests are allowable in provisional measures proceedings has not yet been decided by the Court of Appeal and merits discussion at the oral hearing (paragraph 6). The extension balances Abbott’s interest in a prompt hearing against the respondents’ interest in responding in substance to late-introduced auxiliary requests, taking the summer holiday into account. By introducing them, Abbott should have anticipated that they could cause delay (paragraph 7).

Key points for practice

Practical point: a party that introduces auxiliary requests at the appeal stage of interim proceedings accepts the risk that the timetable will be extended for the other side.

Provisions applied

Rules of Procedure: Rules 9, 222.2 and 263
Case law cited: Court of Appeal, order of 23 July 2024 in the same proceedings (ORD_43134/2024, App_42682/2024)

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: UPC Court of Appeal.

Dhenne Avocats blog: UPC Appeals: What the Numbers Show.

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: Generic application
Outcome (Dhenne Avocats summary): La cour d’appel maintient son ordonnance du 23 juillet 2024 : la recevabilité des requêtes subsidiaires d’Abbott sera débattue à l’audience et les intimées conservent la prorogation de leur délai de réponse.
Appeal: Decision of the Court of Appeal.
Instance: Court of Appeal decision.

Patents mentioned

EP 3 831 283 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 3 831 283` Analyte sensor devices, connections, and methods recorded proprietor: Abbott Diabetes Care Inc	Mentioned in the analysis (role not qualified) Also mentioned in 8 other decision(s): Sibio v Abbott Diabetes Care (CoA, 14 August 2026) · Sibio Technology v Abbott Diabetes Care (CFI, 21 July 2025) · Abbott Diabetes Care v Sibio Technology (CFI, UPC_CFI_131/2024, 19 Jun · Sibio v Abbott Diabetes Care (CoA, 27 February 2026) · Abbott Diabetes Care v Sibio (CoA, 14 February 2025) · Abbott Diabetes Care v Powell Gilbert LLP (CoA, 9 January 2025) · Powell Gilbert LLP v Abbott Diabetes Care (CFI, 29 July 2024) · Abbott Diabetes Care v Sibio Technology (CFI, UPC_CFI_130/2024, 19 Jun	not recorded	not recorded	not recorded	Espacenet · European Patent Register existence and title of the publication checked on 30 October 2026 (Google Patents, Espacenet and Register links are not checked automatically) 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.