Abbott Diabetes Care v Sinocare (CFI, 22 October 2025)

Dhenne Avocats · 10 October 2026

Our analysis

Summary

By order of 22 October 2025 (UPC_CFI_587/2025), The Hague Local Division dismissed Abbott Diabetes Care’s application for provisional measures against Sinocare and A. Menarini Diagnostics, based on the unitary patent EP 3 988 471 concerning displays for a glucose monitoring system. The iCan CGM app shows event icons not in the timeline graph itself but in a separate panel. The dismissal came with an interim costs award of EUR 400,000, the applicable ceiling, against Abbott: an unfounded application for provisional measures can prove costly at this early stage.

Facts and procedure

The products concerned are the GlucoMen iCan sensor and the iCan CGM app, made by Sinocare and marketed by Menarini. The patent, granted on 26 July 2023 with unitary effect, was maintained in amended form by the EPO Opposition Division. Abbott obtained samples at the end of April 2025 and filed its application on 27 June 2025, the oral hearing took place on 3 September 2025. It relied on claims 1 to 10, 13, 14 and 16 and sought an injunction with penalty payments and corrective measures. A parallel application between the same parties is registered as UPC_CFI_624/2025.

The applicable law

The division relied on Art. 32 and 33 UPCA and Art. 7(2) and 71b(2) of Regulation 1215/2012 for jurisdiction, on Rule 211 RoP for provisional measures, and on Art. 69 EPC and the Court of Appeal’s principles of interpretation for the scope of the claim. The interim costs award rests on Rule 211.1(d) RoP and on the scale of ceilings for recoverable costs of 24 April 2023.

Question

Does feature 1.13(c), requiring the timeline graph screen to ‘comprise’ event icons included in the graph, cover an interface in which those icons sit in a panel separate from the trend graph?

Decision

No. The UPC has jurisdiction, including over Sinocare under Art. 7(2) (paragraphs 25 and 26), and the application was not delayed, Abbott having needed time after obtaining samples (paragraph 27). The skilled person is a software engineer or user interface designer for medical devices (paragraph 34). As the patent concerns screen layout, layout differences matter. It distinguishes screens from panels, and ‘comprise’ and ‘include’ are synonyms, so the icons must be in the same area as the graph (paragraphs 37 to 40). In the iCan app, the icons are in an area separate from the trend graph: infringement of claims 1 and 14 is not more likely than not (paragraphs 42 and 43). Validity was not examined. The value of the dispute was set at EUR 4 million, as Abbott requested and without objection, which puts the costs ceiling at EUR 400,000, as the defendants’ cost statements exceeded that ceiling and Abbott indicated costs of a similar order, the interim award sought was found sufficiently founded (paragraphs 46 to 48).

Key points for practice

• For a patent on interface layout, the allocation of elements between screens and panels is decisive for infringement.
• The division may dismiss an application for provisional measures on the sole ground that infringement is not likely, without examining validity.
• The value of the dispute proposed by the applicant also caps its own exposure to costs if it fails.
• Practical point: before putting a value on an application for provisional measures, the applicant should bear in mind that a dismissal may lead to an interim costs award equal to the ceiling.

Provisions applied

Agreement on a Unified Patent Court

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

Statute of the Court

Art. 37(2)

Rules of Procedure

Rules 158.2, 211, 220.1(c), 224.1(b), 354 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 (Court of Appeal, UPC_CoA_335/2023)

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.