Abbott Diabetes Care v Dexcom (CFI, 31 July 2024)
| Date | 31 July 2024 |
|---|---|
| Court | CFI |
| Division | Paris (FR) Local Division |
| Type of action | Order Communicate Information |
| Registry reference | App_36267/2024 · ORD_36398/2024 |
| Parties | Dexcom 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.
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
- Practical point: choosing to sue only some distributors narrows the reach of a disclosure request during the proceedings, while information on each defendant’s role can be sought after the merits decision.
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
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
Parties
- claimantAbbott Diabetes Care Inc.36 decisions in the corpusFollow this party
- defendantAbbott Diabetes Care Inc.36 decisions in the corpusFollow this party
- claimantDexcom Inc.23 decisions in the corpusFollow this party
- claimantDexcom International Limited8 decisions in the corpusFollow this party
- claimantDexcom France SAS2 decisions in the corpusFollow this party
Decisions in the same proceedings and documented appeals
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
EP 3 988 471mentioned in: Dhenne Avocats analysis Follow this patent
Related decisions cited in the analyses
- Franz Kaldewei v Bette (CFI, 3 July 2024) cited in this record
- HEWLETT-PACKARD DEVELOPMENT v LAMA FRANCE (CFI, 2 August 2024) cites this decision
Patents and standards
| Publication | Role in the dispute | Family | Standard and declaration | Pool | Sources |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
EP 3 988 471 | Mentioned 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 recorded | not recorded | not recorded | Espacenet links not checked mentioned in: Dhenne Avocats analysis |
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.