Abbott Diabetes Care v Dexcom (CFI, 7 October 2024)

Date	7 October 2024
Court	CFI
Division	Nordic Baltic Regional Division
Type of action	Generic Order
Registry reference	ORD_55063/2024
Parties	Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. v. Dexcom Inc., Dexcom International Limited

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 preliminary order of 7 October 2024 (UPC_CFI_430/2023, ACT_588346/2023, ORD_55063/2024), the judge-rapporteur of the Nordic-Baltic Regional Division (K. Härmand, panel presided by S. Johansson, with P. Perrotti) dismissed Abbott Diabetes Care’s applications to amend its prayer for relief and for an order to provide information in its infringement action on EP 3977921 against Dexcom, while excluding, at Abbott’s request, the revocation ground based on the Heller document, filed late by Dexcom. The oral hearing is set for 19 December 2024 in Stockholm.

Question

May Abbott amend its prayer for relief and obtain distribution-chain information before the hearing, and is a new revocation ground admissible after the counterclaim?

Decision

Amendment is refused: replacing « and » with « and/or » widens the scope of the injunction without any change in circumstances, adding contributory infringement is either redundant or an extension, and alternative requests are unnecessary since the Court may grant relief in whole or in part (Art. 76(1) UPCA). The Rule 191 application, admissible because the rule is read broadly in light of Directive 2004/48, is disproportionate: evidence has already been filed, the dispute is legal rather than factual and the request is too vague to be enforced. Finally, as the procedure is front-loaded, all revocation grounds must be set out in the counterclaim (Rule 25.1 RoP): the Heller document, first filed on 12 August 2024, is excluded.

Key points for practice

Practical point: a counterclaim for revocation must contain every ground and document from the outset, and a Rule 191 application must be precise and necessary.

Provisions applied

Agreement on a Unified Patent Court: Arts. 33(3), 67 and 76(1)
Rules of Procedure: Rules 25.1, 29(d), 32.3, 104, 105.5, 176, 190, 191 and 263
Directive 2004/48/EC: Directive 2004/48/EC
Case law cited: BITZER Electronics v Carrier, Paris Central Division, 29 July 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: 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
defendantDexcom Inc.23 decisions in the corpus Follow this party
defendantDexcom International Limited8 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 Order
Outcome (Dhenne Avocats summary): Le juge rapporteur refuse la modification des conclusions et la demande d'informations d'Abbott, écarte le moyen de nullité tiré du document Heller, produit tardivement par Dexcom, et fixe l'audience au 19 décembre 2024.
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 3 977 921 mentioned in: Dhenne Avocats analysis Follow this patent

Related decisions cited in the analyses

BITZER Electronics v Carrier (CFI, 29 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 3 977 921`	Mentioned in the analysis (role not qualified) Also mentioned in 1 other decision(s): Abbott Diabetes Care v Dexcom (CFI, 20 January 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.