Opens in a new tab

DexCom v Abbott Logistics (CFI, 25 November 2024)

Date25 November 2024
CourtCFI
DivisionParis (FR) Local Division
Type of actionGeneric application
Registry referenceApp_60804/2024 · ORD_62696/2024
PartiesDexCom, Inc.

Official decision (PDF) · UPC registry entry

Dhenne Avocats represents claimants and defendants in European patent disputes before the Unified Patent Court, including the Paris divisions.

Contact the firm

Dhenne Avocats · 10 October 2026

Our analysis

Summary

By order of 25 November 2024 (UPC_CFI_395/2023, ACT_583778/2023, ORD_62696/2024), the presiding judge of the Paris Local Division (C. Lignières), in DexCom’s infringement action on EP 3 831 282 against Abbott Logistics B.V. and thirteen other Abbott companies, held admissible but dismissed DexCom’s application for the parties to be allowed, after the hearing of 30 October 2024, to comment on a decision of the Munich Regional Court of 6 November 2024 on the German part of the parent patent EP 2 939 158.

Question

Do the case management powers allow the debate to be reopened after the oral hearing in order to bring in a later national decision on a parent patent?

Decision

The case management powers under the Rules of Procedure do not end with the interim procedure: the presiding judge may exercise them afterwards, including after the oral hearing, so the application is admissible. It is not, however, justified at this late stage: the Munich decision concerns the parent patent, whose features are similar but different, and it does not decide validity on the merits, the German court having ruled on a request for a stay pending nullity proceedings before the Federal Patent Court. There is no reason to reopen the debate. The order may be reviewed under Rule 333.

Key points for practice

Provisions applied

Agreement on a Unified Patent Court
Art. 43
Rules of Procedure
Rules 333, 334 and 336
Case law cited
No UPC decision is cited.

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.


Going further

Lexicon: Written procedure (UPC), Court fees and costs (UPC).

Source and translations

Official source
Unified Patent Court registry link recorded in the record
Original language
not recorded
Translation available
no translation recorded the firm’s French record is a summary, not a translation
Date checked
not recorded
Only the official text is authoritative. A machine translation is never presented as official, republishing a third-party document requires a verified basis in rights, and a link to the source is preferred.

Follow this case

Proceedings, related decisions, appeals, parties and patents as recorded in the registry and in the Dhenne Avocats corpus. Each link states its source.

Proceedings

No case number recorded in this record.

Parties

Exact name as it appears in the record, group affiliation only where sourced and dated.

Decisions in the same proceedings and documented appeals

No other decision in the corpus bears the same case number, and no appeal is documented in the corpus to date.

What the record states

Nature of the act
Generic application
Outcome (Dhenne Avocats summary)
La demande de DexCom, recevable car les pouvoirs de gestion de l'instance subsistent après l'audience, est rejetée : la décision de Munich sur le brevet parent ne justifie pas de rouvrir les débats.
Appeal
No appeal documented in the corpus, this does not mean that no appeal was lodged.
Instance
First-instance decision, whether it has become final is not recorded.

Patents mentioned

Scope: Dhenne Avocats corpus. Registry-based links are marked “official number”; links derived from the analyses are marked as such. An erroneous link can be withdrawn without deleting any record.

Patents and standards

PublicationRole in the disputeFamilyStandard and declarationPoolSources
EP 3 831 282Mentioned in the analysis (role not qualified)
Also mentioned in 4 other decision(s): DexCom v Abbott Diagnostics (CFI, 11 December 2024) · DexCom v Abbott Laboratories (CoA, ORD_3985/2025, 24 January 2025) · Abbott Logistics v DexCom (CFI, 11 October 2024) · DexCom v Abbott Laboratories (CFI, 12 February 2024)
not recordednot recordednot recordedEspacenet
links not checked
mentioned in: Dhenne Avocats analysis
EP 2 939 158Mentioned in the analysis (role not qualified)not recordednot recordednot recordedEspacenet
links not checked
mentioned in: Dhenne Avocats analysis
The statuses “asserted in litigation”, “declared essential”, “listed by a pool” and “essentiality examined by a court” are distinct and may coexist. Validity, infringement and technical essentiality are different questions. Scope: patents cited in the decisions of the Dhenne Avocats corpus, with no essentiality score or prediction.

Receive an alert

Weekly summary of new records and substantive updates matching what you follow. Address confirmed by email, unsubscribe at any time, one email per week even where several of your follows match.

Follow

Weekly summary, on Fridays.