Opens in a new tab

DexCom v Abbott Laboratories (CoA, ORD_3985/2025, 24 January 2025)

Date24 January 2025
CourtCoA
DivisionLuxembourg (LU)
Type of actionWithdrawal (RoP265)
Registry referenceApp_1178/2025 · ORD_3985/2025
PartiesNewyu,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.

Contact the firm

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

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
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
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

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 3 831 282Mentioned 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 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.