Opens in a new tab

Dexcom v Abbott Laboratories (CFI, 30 January 2024)

Date30 January 2024
CourtCFI
DivisionParis (FR) Local Division
Type of actionInfringement Action
Case number(s)UPC_CFI_230/2023
Registry referenceORD_561/2023 · UPC_CFI_230/2023
PartiesDexcom, Inc. v. Abbott Laboratories, Abbott Diabetes Care inc, Abbott France, Abbott NV/SA, Abbott B.V, Abbott S.r.l, Abbott Sacandinavia Akti…

Official decision (PDF) · UPC registry entry

Case timeline

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 30 January 2024 (UPC_CFI_230/2023, App_253/2024), the full panel of the Paris Local Division dismissed Abbott’s request for review of point 6 of the judge-rapporteur’s confidentiality order, which caps the penalty for each breach at EUR 50,000, whereas the Munich Local Division had set EUR 250,000 for the same information. The order confirms that each division assesses confidentiality measures in its own proceedings.

Question

In the infringement action on DexCom’s EP 3 435 866, Abbott sought review under Rule 333 RoP to align the cap with the Munich order of 31 December 2023 in parallel proceedings (UPC_CFI_233/2023). DexCom, for its part, proposed that penalties imposed in Munich be taken into account.

Decision

The two orders concern the same information but were made by different divisions, in separate proceedings on different patents. One division is not bound by another, and harmonisation is not justified. The cap must be proportionate and sufficiently dissuasive. Since part of the information had already been disclosed without restriction in German proceedings, EUR 50,000 is appropriate. In the event of a breach the penalty will be set in the light of all the circumstances, including any penalty already imposed in Munich for the same breach, so DexCom’s proposed amendment is unnecessary. The operative part dates the order under review 19 November 2023.

Key points for practice

Provisions applied

Rules of Procedure
Rules 220.2, 262.2, 262A and 333
Case law cited
Munich Local Division, confidentiality order of 31 December 2023, UPC_CFI_233/2023.

Related decisions

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.


Decisions in the same proceedings

Going further

Lexicon: Patent infringement action.

Publications by Matthieu Dhenne: Pleading the Long Arm: What a UPC Statement of Claim Must Carry Beyond Jurisdiction (Kluwer Patent Blog).

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

  • UPC_CFI_230/2023 official number

Follow this case

Parties

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

Decisions in the same proceedings and documented appeals

  1. 24 January 2024 Dexcom v Abbott Laboratories (CFI, 24 January 2024) Infringement Action · UPC_CFI_230/2023

    La division locale de Paris refuse l'autorisation de faire appel de l'ordonnance de confidentialité du 19 décembre 2023, le réexamen par la formation au titre de la règle 333 étant encore pendant.

  2. 30 January 2024 Dexcom v Abbott Laboratories (CFI, 30 January 2024) Infringement Action · UPC_CFI_230/2023
  3. 14 March 2024 Abbott Laboratories v DexCom (CoA, 14 March 2024) Decision By Default · appeal, first-instance number cited in the decision

    L'appel formé par Abbott sans autorisation contre l'ordonnance de confidentialité de la division locale de Paris est rejeté comme irrecevable. Irrecevable dès l'origine, il ne pouvait être retiré.

  4. 4 July 2024 DexCom v Abbott Scandinavia Aktiebolag (CFI, 4 July 2024) Generic Order · UPC_CFI_230/2023

    L'EP 3 435 866 est annulé pour défaut d'activité inventive, tel que délivré et tel que modifié, et l'action en contrefaçon de DexCom est rejetée. La JUB conserve sa compétence pour la partie allemande malgré l'exclusion territoriale et l'action nationale antérieure.

  5. 24 January 2025 DexCom v Abbott Laboratories (CoA, App_68655/2024, 24 January 2025) appeal, first-instance number cited in the decision

    La cour d'appel autorise le désistement réciproque en appel, déclare la procédure close, constate que la décision d'annulation de première instance est privée d'effet et ordonne le remboursement de 60 % des taxes d'appel.

What the record states

Nature of the act
Infringement Action
Outcome (Dhenne Avocats summary)
La division locale de Paris refuse d'aligner sur la décision munichoise le plafond de 50 000 euros par manquement fixé par son ordonnance de confidentialité et rejette la demande de réexamen.
Appeal
An appeal is documented in the corpus (see above).
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 3 435 866Mentioned in the analysis (role not qualified)
Also mentioned in 6 other decision(s): DexCom v Abbott Scandinavia Aktiebolag (CFI, 4 July 2024) · DexCom v Abbott Scandinavia Aktiebolag (CFI, 31 July 2024) · Dexcom v Abbott Laboratories (CFI, 24 January 2024) · Dexcom v Abbott Laboratories (CFI, 19 December 2023) · DexCom v Abbott Laboratories (CoA, ORD_3184/2025, 24 January 2025) · DexCom v Abbott Laboratories (CoA, App_68655/2024, 24 January 2025)		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.