Abbott Diabetes Care v Sinocare (CFI, 17 October 2025)

Dhenne Avocats · 10 October 2026

Our analysis

Summary

By order of 17 October 2025 (UPC_CFI_624/2025), The Hague Local Division granted Abbott Diabetes Care’s application for provisional measures against Sinocare and A. Menarini Diagnostics, based on the unitary patent EP 4 344 633 concerning analyte sensor assemblies. The GlucoMen iCan continuous glucose monitoring system is prohibited throughout the UPC territory, without security. Five days later the same panel dismissed a parallel application by Abbott against the same products based on a different patent (UPC_CFI_587/2025): the outcome turns on each patent.

Facts and procedure

The patent, deriving from a divisional application, was granted on 4 June 2025 with unitary effect. The application was filed on 4 July 2025, the defendants contested infringement and validity on 18 August 2025 and the oral hearing took place on 3 September 2025. Sinocare is named as manufacturer in the Eudamed database and the user guide. Menarini markets the product, which is CE-marked (paragraphs 21 and 22).

The applicable law

The division relied on Art. 25(a), 32, 33(1)(a) and 63 UPCA, on Art. 7(2) and 71b(2) of Regulation 1215/2012 for jurisdiction over Sinocare, on Rule 211 RoP for provisional measures and on Art. 69 EPC, applied in line with Court of Appeal case law, for the scope of the claims.

Question

Do features 1.4 and 1.6 of claim 1 read on the GlucoMen iCan sensor, is the patent more likely valid than not, and is an injunction without security proportionate?

Decision

Yes. Urgency is established: the application followed grant by about a month, and the CE-marked product can be sold in the self-pay segment, with a risk of price erosion (paragraphs 22 and 59). For the skilled person, a mechanical engineer experienced in designing continuous glucose monitoring systems, ‘distal’ means away from the user’s hand, without requiring contact with the skin (paragraphs 31 and 32), and feature 1.6 is not limited to the two-piece seal of Figure 34 (paragraphs 34 to 38). The Dexcom patent family does not disclose a pre-assembled sensor assembly with a sharp, and there was no incentive to modify the prior art (paragraphs 44 to 50), disclosure is sufficient (paragraphs 52 to 55). Features 1.4 and 1.6 are met, the others being undisputed (paragraph 57). The injunction is needed to prevent entry into the reimbursement market, and security was refused as no risk of Abbott being unable to pay was shown (paragraph 59). The defendants must provide information on origin and distribution channels within four weeks and deliver up stock to a bailiff within two weeks. Sales and price data were held premature (paragraphs 61 and 62). Penalties may reach EUR 100,000 per day, capped at EUR 1 million per defendant. The value is set at EUR 4 million and interim costs of EUR 11,000 are awarded.

Key points for practice

• A functional reading of claim terms, detached from the illustrated embodiment, may be enough to establish likely infringement.
• CE marking and the possibility of direct sales to patients establish urgency and the risk of price erosion.
• Security is required only where the defendant shows a risk that the applicant could not compensate the harm caused by the measure.
• Practical point: where several patents cover one product, each application for provisional measures must be prepared patent by patent, as outcomes may differ before the same panel.

Provisions applied

Agreement on a Unified Patent Court

Art. 1, 25(a), 32(1)(a) and (c), 33(1)(a), 63, 73(2)(a) and 82

Statute of the Court

Art. 37(2)

Rules of Procedure

Rules 118.8, 158.2, 211, 213.1, 220.1(c), 224.1(b), 354.3 and 355.4

European Patent Convention

Art. 69

Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012

Art. 7(2) and 71b(2)

Case law cited

NanoString v 10x Genomics, 26 February 2024 (UPC_CoA_335/2023), Abbott v Sibio, 14 February 2025 (UPC_CoA_382/2024), Philips v Belkin, 3 October 2025 (UPC_CoA_534/2024, UPC_CoA_683/2024 and UPC_CoA_19/2025), all Court of Appeal

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.