Abbott Diabetes Care v Sinocare (CFI, 19 May 2026)

Dhenne Avocats · 10 October 2026

Our analysis

Summary

By order of 19 May 2026 (UPC_CFI_1613/2025 and UPC_CFI_943/2026), the judge-rapporteur of The Hague Local Division deferred to the main proceedings the preliminary objection raised by Sinocare Inc and the other defendants in Abbott Diabetes Care Inc.’s action for infringement of EP 4 344 633, filed on 20 November 2025. The objection challenged jurisdiction over three defendants and sought to limit the territorial reach of the action against the others. The order does not decide the jurisdiction issue.

Question

Should a preliminary objection challenging jurisdiction in part be decided at once or dealt with in the main proceedings?

Decision

Both sides had suggested deferral, since the objection could not lead to the dismissal of the action as a whole (paragraph 4). The judge-rapporteur noted that the objection could neither result in the action being dismissed in full nor make the division incompetent for the whole case, and that case law on certain jurisdiction rules was evolving rapidly, for instance on the interpretation of Art. 63 UPCA as regards the acts of an intermediary. The decision was therefore deferred to the main proceedings under Rule 20.2, so that the parties and the Court could take developments into account (paragraph 5).

Key points for practice

• A preliminary objection aimed at only some defendants or territories may be dealt with in the main proceedings, particularly where the relevant case law is still developing (paragraph 5).

Provisions applied

Agreement on a Unified Patent Court

Art. 63

Rules of Procedure

Rule 20.2

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.