DexCom v Abbott Laboratories (CoA, ORD_3985/2025, 24 January 2025)
| Date | 24 January 2025 |
|---|---|
| Court | CoA |
| Division | Luxembourg (LU) |
| Type of action | Withdrawal (RoP265) |
| Registry reference | App_1178/2025 · ORD_3985/2025 |
| Parties | Newyu,Inc., Abbott Laboratories, Abbott Laboratories A/S, Abbott Scandinavia Aktiebolag, Abbott Diabetes Care Inc., Abbott GmbH, Abbott Log… |
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
In an order of 24 January 2025 (UPC_CoA_840/2024), the Court of Appeal permitted, on appeal, the withdrawal of DexCom’s infringement action and of the counterclaim for revocation brought by the Abbott companies, including Newyu, concerning EP 3 831 282. On 11 December 2024 the Paris Local Division had revoked the patent in its entirety and dismissed the infringement action. Closing the proceedings renders that decision ineffective: the first-instance revocation falls away with the proceedings.
Question
Can a withdrawal under Rule 265 take place on appeal, and what then becomes of the first-instance decision revoking the patent?
Decision
The application is admissible as long as there is no final decision, which is the case while an appeal is pending, and the Court of Appeal has jurisdiction to decide it, in line with its Avago v Tesla orders (paragraph 8). As both parties consent, neither has a legitimate interest in a decision (paragraph 9). Closing the proceedings renders the impugned order ineffective (paragraph 10). No costs decision is needed, since neither party sought one (paragraph 11), and 60% of the appeal fees are refunded to DexCom (Rule 370.9(b)(i), paragraph 12).
Key points for practice
- A patentee whose patent was revoked at first instance can, through mutual withdrawals on appeal, cause the revocation decision to fall away (paragraphs 9 and 10).
- Practical point: a defendant who withdraws its counterclaim on appeal gives up the benefit of the revocation obtained at first instance, which ceases to have effect.
Provisions applied
- Rules of Procedure
- Rules 265 and 370.9(b)(i)
- Case law cited
- Avago v Tesla Germany, Court of Appeal, 15 January 2025, UPC_CoA_629/2024, 631/2024 and 632/2024, Avago v Tesla, Court of Appeal, 15 January 2025, UPC_CoA_637/2024, 638/2024 and 639/2024.
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: UPC Court of Appeal.
Dhenne Avocats blog: UPC Appeals: What the Numbers Show.
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
- claimantNewyu,Inc.2 decisions in the corpusFollow this party
- claimantAbbott Laboratories8 decisions in the corpusFollow this party
- claimantAbbott Laboratories A/SFollow this party
- claimantAbbott Scandinavia Aktiebolag5 decisions in the corpusFollow this party
- claimantAbbott GmbH3 decisions in the corpusFollow this party
- claimantAbbott LogFollow this party
Decisions in the same proceedings and documented appeals
What the record states
- Nature of the act
- Withdrawal (RoP265)
- Outcome (Dhenne Avocats summary)
- La cour d’appel admet le désistement de l’action en contrefaçon de DexCom et de la demande reconventionnelle en nullité des sociétés Abbott, déclare la procédure close et rembourse 60 % des taxes d’appel à DexCom.
- Appeal
- Decision of the Court of Appeal.
- Instance
- Court of Appeal decision.
Patents mentioned
EP 3 831 282mentioned in: Dhenne Avocats analysis Follow this patent
Related decisions cited in the analyses
- Avago Technologies International Sales v Tesla Germany (CoA, 15 January 2025) cited in this record
Patents and standards
| Publication | Role in the dispute | Family | Standard and declaration | Pool | Sources |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
EP 3 831 282 | Mentioned in the analysis (role not qualified) Also mentioned in 4 other decision(s): DexCom v Abbott Diagnostics (CFI, 11 December 2024) · DexCom v Abbott Logistics (CFI, 25 November 2024) · Abbott Logistics v DexCom (CFI, 11 October 2024) · DexCom v Abbott Laboratories (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.