DexCom v Abbott Laboratories (CoA, ORD_3184/2025, 24 January 2025)

Date	24 January 2025
Court	CoA
Division	Luxembourg (LU)
Type of action	Generic Order
Case number(s)	ORD_3184/2025
Registry reference	ORD_3184/2025
Parties	DexCom Inc.
Language	English

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 an order of 24 January 2025 (UPC_CoA_569/2024), the Court of Appeal permitted, on appeal, the withdrawal of DexCom’s infringement action (UPC_CFI_233/2023, EP 3 797 685) and of the Abbott companies’ counterclaims for revocation, declared the proceedings closed and ordered a refund of 60% of the appeal fees. The Munich Local Division had revoked the patent in its entirety on 31 July 2024. Closing the proceedings renders that decision ineffective, a point of direct use to parties settling on appeal.

Question

Is a mutual withdrawal still possible on appeal after the patent has been revoked, and what becomes of the impugned decision and the amendment requests?

Decision

Withdrawal remains admissible as long as there is no final decision, which is the case while the appeal is pending, and the Court of Appeal rules on admissibility (paragraph 8). With the parties’ consent, neither has a legitimate interest in a decision on the merits (paragraph 9). Closing the proceedings renders the impugned decision ineffective (paragraph 10). The amendment requests, being ancillary, lapse with the withdrawal of the counterclaim, without a separate order (paragraph 11). As both parties waived a costs decision, none was given (paragraph 12). The withdrawal having occurred before the written procedure on appeal closed, 60% of the fees were refunded (Rule 370.9(b)(i), paragraph 13).

Key points for practice

A mutual withdrawal on appeal renders the first-instance revocation decision ineffective.
Practical point: withdrawing before the written procedure on appeal closes secures a 60% refund of the appeal fees.

Provisions applied

Rules of Procedure: Rules 265, 370.9(b)(i) and 370.11
Case law cited: Court of Appeal, 15 January 2025, Avago v Tesla (UPC_CoA_637/2024, UPC_CoA_638/2024 and UPC_CoA_639/2024), Court of Appeal, 15 January 2025, Avago Technologies International Sales v Tesla Germany and Tesla Manufacturing Brandenburg (UPC_CoA_629/2024, UPC_CoA_631/2024 and UPC_CoA_632/2024)

Related decisions

DexCom v Abbott, Court of Appeal, 24 January 2025, parallel order on EP 3 435 866.

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: Unitary patent, Local and central divisions (UPC).

Dhenne Avocats blog: The Transitional Period and the UPC: Coordinating Two Judicial Orders.

Publications by Matthieu Dhenne: Four Questions That Decide a UPC Market Entry, 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: English from the language of proceedings
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

ORD_3184/2025 official number

Follow this case

First instance cited in the decision: UPC_CFI_233/2023

Parties

claimantDexCom Inc.normalised name: Dexcom Inc.23 decisions in the corpus Follow this party

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 Order
Outcome (Dhenne Avocats summary): La cour d'appel autorise le désistement réciproque en appel, déclare la procédure close, constate que la décision d'annulation de la division locale de Munich est privée d'effet et ordonne le remboursement de 60 % des taxes d'appel.
Appeal: Decision of the Court of Appeal (first instance cited: UPC_CFI_233/2023).
Instance: Court of Appeal decision.

Patents mentioned

EP 3 797 685 mentioned in: Dhenne Avocats analysis Follow this patent
EP 3 435 866 mentioned in: Dhenne Avocats analysis Follow this patent

Related decisions cited in the analyses

DexCom v Abbott Laboratories (CoA, App_68655/2024, 24 January 2025) cited in this record

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

Publication	Role in the dispute	Family	Standard and declaration	Pool	Sources
`EP 3 797 685`	Mentioned in the analysis (role not qualified) Also mentioned in 1 other decision(s): DexCom v Abbott Scandinavia Aktiebolag (CFI, 31 July 2024)	not recorded	not recorded	not recorded	Espacenet links not checked mentioned in: Dhenne Avocats analysis
`EP 3 435 866`	Mentioned 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, 30 January 2024) · Dexcom v Abbott Laboratories (CFI, 24 January 2024) · Dexcom v Abbott Laboratories (CFI, 19 December 2023) · DexCom v Abbott Laboratories (CoA, App_68655/2024, 24 January 2025)	not recorded	not recorded	not recorded	Espacenet 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.