Abbott Diabetes Care v Shenzhen SiSensing (CFI, 7 September 2026)

Dhenne Avocats · 10 October 2026

Our analysis

Summary

The Milan Local Division grants Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. a provisional injunction against the GS3-R glucose monitoring system, on the basis of EP 3 960 072, together with an order for information on distribution channels. It adopts a balanced construction of the claims, finds the patent more likely than not valid despite the pending EPO opposition, and holds the EU authorised representative appointed under the Medical Devices Regulation to be an infringer. For manufacturers established outside the EU, the order shows that such a regulatory representative may be targeted under Arts. 25 and 63 UPCA.

Facts and procedure

Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. owns EP 3 960 072 B1, concerning compact on-body physiological monitoring devices, granted on 11 December 2024 on a divisional application. On 27 March 2026 it applied to the Milan Local Division for provisional measures against the GS3-R, relying on claims 1 to 9. The respondents are Shenzhen SiSensing Co., Ltd (manufacturer), SiBionics GmbH (importer), Sibio Technology Limited and Sibio PTE Ltd. (website and offers in Europe) and Shanghai International Holding Corp. GmbH, EU authorised representative under Regulation (EU) 2017/745. An opposition is pending before the EPO. On 6 February 2026 The Hague Local Division had granted Abbott provisional measures on the same patent against other companies. The respondents challenged validity (insufficiency, added matter, inventive step) and infringement. The oral hearing took place on 14 July 2026.

The applicable law

Provisional measures are governed by Art. 62 UPCA and Rules 206 and 211 RoP: the division considers whether it is more likely than not that the patent is valid and infringed, checks that the applicant has not delayed (Rule 211.4 RoP) and weighs the parties’ interests (Art. 62(2) UPCA and Rule 211.3 RoP). Acts of infringement and measures against intermediaries fall under Arts. 25 and 63 UPCA, undisputed facts are held to be established (Rule 171.2 RoP). Validity is examined against the grounds in Art. 100(a) and (b) EPC.

Question

Is the patent likely to be valid and infringed by the GS3-R, and can the EU authorised representative appointed by a manufacturer established outside the EU be held to be an infringer?

Decision

The division first admits the respondents’ new arguments on feature 1.6, since claim construction is a question of law and Abbott was able to respond at the hearing without asking for further time (section 5). It rejects a reading limiting the claim to a movable inner housing, construes the cap by its sealing function and treats the insertion device as the whole assembly (section 6). Insufficiency is rejected in view of the trigger and spring mechanisms disclosed, added matter is rejected, and Stafford (D1) is found highly doubtful as a realistic starting point, the choice of Cote (D2) being unexplained (section 7). The GS3-R, substantially identical to the GS3, more likely than not infringes literally (section 8). The authorised representative is not a passive intermediary: its appointment makes a material contribution to placing the product on the market, so it is an infringer (section 9). The application, filed about six weeks after the launch notices, was not delayed (section 10), and price erosion in reimbursement markets tips the balance in Abbott’s favour (section 11). The injunction is granted for the UPC territory in the States concerned, with an information order. The specific request against the representative is dismissed as unnecessary, and the request for a declaration under Regulation (EU) No 608/2013 is held inadmissible (section 12).

Key points for practice

• New claim construction arguments may be admitted in provisional proceedings where the other side could answer them, the division declining an overly rigid application of the front-loaded system (section 5).
• The authorised representative appointed under Art. 11 of Regulation (EU) 2017/745 is treated as an infringer, not as a mere intermediary (section 9).
• A request to have the products declared goods suspected of infringement under Regulation (EU) No 608/2013 cannot be granted in proceedings for provisional measures (section 12).
• Practical point: in reimbursed medical device markets, price erosion and patients switching to cheaper products weigh in the balance of interests (section 11).

Provisions applied

Agreement on a Unified Patent Court

Arts. 25, 62 and 63

Rules of Procedure

Rules 171.2, 206 and 211

European Patent Convention

Art. 100(a) and (b)

Directive 2004/48/EC

Art. 9

Other provisions

Regulation (EU) No 608/2013, Art. 2(7), Regulation (EU) 2017/745, Art. 11

Case law cited

Aesculap AG v Shanghai International, Düsseldorf Local Division, 10 July 2025, on acts of infringement, Philips v Belkin, Court of Appeal, 2 October 2025 (UPC_CoA_534/2024), same point, Dyson v Dreame, Hamburg Local Division, 7 April 2026, on the burden of proof for insufficiency, Court of Appeal, 25 November 2025 (UPC_CoA_457/2024), on inventive step, The Hague Local Division, 6 February 2026 (UPC_CFI_830/2025), provisional measures on the same patent.

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.