Abbott Diabetes Care v Sibio (CoA, 14 February 2025)

Dhenne Avocats · 10 October 2026

Our analysis

Summary

By an order of 14 February 2025 (UPC_CoA_382/2024), the Court of Appeal set aside the order of the Hague Local Division of 19 June 2024 that had refused Abbott Diabetes Care provisional measures against Sibio Technology and Umedwings Netherlands (“Sibionics”). Whereas the first instance had found added matter in claim 1 of EP 3 831 283 more likely than not, the Court rejected every added matter, novelty and inventive step attack, found likely infringement by the GS1 continuous glucose monitoring device and granted an injunction covering fourteen Contracting Member States. Practitioners will note the general scope of the injunction, the exclusion of Ireland, the application of Art. 67 UPCA at the provisional stage and the urgency analysis.

Facts and procedure

Abbott owns EP 3 831 283, a second-generation divisional for an on-body device, granted on 26 April 2023 with no opposition filed. On 20 March 2024 it applied for provisional measures against the GS1, offered online and imported into the EU by Umedwings. The Hague Local Division dismissed the application on 19 June 2024 for likely added matter (omission of an elastomeric sealing member). Abbott appealed. The hearing took place on 27 November 2024.

The applicable law

Provisional measures are governed by Art. 62 UPCA and Rules 211 et seq. RoP, the Court having to be satisfied with a sufficient degree of certainty as to validity and infringement. Claims are construed under Art. 69 EPC, its Protocol and the principles laid down by the Court of Appeal in NanoString v 10x Genomics (paragraph 37). Articles 63 and 67 UPCA provide the basis for the injunction and the order to communicate information.

Question

Is the patent more likely than not valid in the face of the added matter, novelty and inventive step attacks, does the GS1 infringe it, and are urgency and the balance of interests satisfied?

Decision

The Court held that it is not more likely than not that the patent contains added matter: the combination of features in claim 1 has a sufficient basis in the application, and omitting the elastomeric sealing does not extend the disclosure, sealing being one option among several (paragraphs 54, 67, 80 and 88). Neither D3 nor D1 anticipates the claim, and none of the combinations relied on leads to claim 1 without inventive effort. The GS1 likely infringes (paragraphs 135 to 142). Urgency was established: displaying the product at trade fairs in 2023 did not amount to knowledge, and the timeline from buying samples through analysis to filing on 20 March 2024 was reasonable (paragraphs 144 to 150). The balance of interests favoured Abbott, given price erosion and the difficulty of recovering damages (paragraphs 151 to 157). The general injunction is sufficiently clear and not too broad (paragraph 158), but Ireland is excluded because it was not sought at first instance and is not a Contracting Member State (paragraph 159). Art. 67 UPCA applies to provisional measures (paragraphs 160 to 162): information on origin, distribution channels and third parties was ordered, information on prices refused (paragraph 164). The Court ordered delivery up of stock to a bailiff and penalty payments of up to EUR 10,000 per violation or EUR 100,000 per day (paragraph 166). Sibionics bears most of the costs, Abbott those of its suspensive effect request and its Ireland request, with an interim award of EUR 11,000 (paragraphs 167 and 168). The request for security for enforcement was refused as unsubstantiated (paragraph 170).

Key points for practice

• A provisional injunction may cover, in general terms, any product falling within claim 1 and not only the product in suit (paragraph 158).
• A request first made on appeal for a non-contracting State such as Ireland will be refused (paragraph 159).
• The right to information under Art. 67 UPCA is available at the provisional stage, but pricing data, relevant only to damages, is refused (paragraphs 160 to 164).
• Practical point: a carefully documented timeline of acquiring and analysing the product helps defend urgency, even where the product was shown at trade fairs months before the application.

Provisions applied

Agreement on a Unified Patent Court

Arts. 25(a), 26, 62, 63(1), 67, 69 and 82(1)

Rules of Procedure

Rules 118.5, 150.2, 211, 212.1, 213, 220.1, 224.1, 226, 242.1 and 354.3

European Patent Convention

Art. 69 and its Protocol on Interpretation

Case law cited

NanoString v 10x Genomics, Court of Appeal, 26 February 2024 (UPC_CoA_335/2023), Court of Appeal, order of 19 August, UPC_CoA_388/2024.

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.