Opens in a new tab

Abbott Diabetes Care v Dexcom (CFI, 31 July 2024)

Date31 July 2024
CourtCFI
DivisionParis (FR) Local Division
Type of actionOrder Communicate Information
Registry referenceApp_36267/2024 · ORD_36398/2024
PartiesDexcom France SAS, Dexcom Inc., Dexcom International Limited, Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. v. Abbott Diabetes Care 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 31 July 2024 (UPC_CFI_425/2023, ORD_36398/2024), the judge-rapporteur of the Paris Local Division dismissed Abbott Diabetes Care’s application under Rule 191 RoP for Dexcom Inc., Dexcom International and Dexcom France to disclose the entire distribution chain of the G6 and G7 systems in each relevant Contracting Member State, in the infringement action on EP 3 988 471. The application was held admissible during the proceedings but insufficiently justified.

Question

May the patentee obtain, before any ruling on infringement, disclosure of the entire distribution chain of the allegedly infringing products?

Decision

The application is admissible: Rule 191 RoP may be invoked during the proceedings, even before infringement has been decided, where needed for the investigation of the case, the judge following the Düsseldorf Local Division and applying the same reasoning to the right of information under Art. 8 of Directive 2004/48/EC. It must, however, be sufficiently justified and proportionate. Abbott chose to sue Dexcom France, selected among many distributors it knew of: disclosure of the whole distribution chain would be disproportionate and not sufficiently directly related to the case. After a decision on the merits establishing infringement, Abbott may seek targeted information on each defendant’s role in order to determine damages. As Abbott failed to show that the information was reasonably necessary within the meaning of Art. 67(1) UPCA, the application is dismissed.

Key points for practice

Provisions applied

Agreement on a Unified Patent Court
Art. 67(1)
Rules of Procedure
Rules 190, 191 and 333
Directive 2004/48/EC
Art. 8
Case law cited
Franz Kaldewei v Bette, Düsseldorf Local Division, 3 July 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.


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
Order Communicate Information
Outcome (Dhenne Avocats summary)
La demande de communication de toute la chaîne de distribution, recevable en cours d'instance, est rejetée comme disproportionnée et insuffisamment justifiée.
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

Related decisions cited in the analyses

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 3 988 471Mentioned in the analysis (role not qualified)
Also mentioned in 4 other decision(s): Abbott Diabetes Care v Sinocare (CoA, 17 April 2026) · Abbott Diabetes Care v Sinocare (CFI, 22 October 2025) · Abbott Diabetes Care v A. Menarini Diagnostics (CFI, 1 August 2025) · Abbott Diabetes Care v Dexcom (CFI, 12 February 2024)
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.