Abbott Diabetes Care v Sibio Technology (CFI, 29 July 2024)

Date	29 July 2024
Court	CFI
Division	The Hague (NL) Local Division
Type of action	Application RoP262.1 (b)
Registry reference	App_39761/2024 · ORD_39917/2024
Parties	Powell Gilbert LLP

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 order of 29 July 2024 (ORD_39917/2024, UPC_CFI_130/2024, ACT_14944/2024), the judge-rapporteur of The Hague Local Division granted the firm Powell Gilbert access to the written pleadings and evidence in the provisional measures proceedings brought by Abbott Diabetes Care against Sibio Technology and Umedwings Netherlands on EP 2 713 879, although the first-instance order was under appeal. Access is deferred for fifteen days and conditional on no appeal being lodged against this order, for which leave to appeal was granted.

Question

May a member of the public access the pleadings and evidence in provisional measures proceedings where the order has been given but is under appeal?

Decision

Yes. Following the Court of Appeal’s order in Ocado v Autostore, the public generally has an interest, once a decision has been given, in accessing pleadings and evidence to understand it and scrutinise the Court, the integrity of proceedings usually mattering only while they are ongoing. An appeal does not remove that interest. It is irrelevant that the decision did not address every argument. Abbott’s request to withhold the annexes was rejected, as none had been filed under Rule 262A RoP and no specific confidentiality grounds were given. Leave to appeal was granted, as Rules 220 and 224 RoP and Art. 73 UPCA leave it unclear whether an appeal lies, and the fifteen-day period keeps an appeal meaningful.

Key points for practice

Practical point: a party wishing to keep documents from public access should file them under Rule 262A RoP and give concrete reasons for confidentiality.

Provisions applied

Agreement on a Unified Patent Court: Art. 73
Rules of Procedure: Rules 220, 224, 262.1(b), 262.2 and 262A
Case law cited: Ocado v Autostore, Court of Appeal, 10 April 2024.

Related decisions

Sibio v Abbott Diabetes Care, 19 June 2024, order on the application for provisional measures.

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), Confidentiality club.

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

claimantPowell Gilbert LLP4 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: Application RoP262.1 (b)
Outcome (Dhenne Avocats summary): L'accès du public aux écritures et pièces est accordé malgré l'appel pendant contre l'ordonnance de mesures provisoires, sous réserve d'un délai de quinze jours, et l'autorisation d'appel est accordée.
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 2 713 879 mentioned in: Dhenne Avocats analysis Follow this patent

Related decisions cited in the analyses

Abbott Diabetes Care v Sibio Technology (CFI, UPC_CFI_130/2024, 19 June 2024) cited in this record
Ocado Innovation v Autostore (CoA, 10 April 2024) 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 2 713 879`	Mentioned in the analysis (role not qualified) Also mentioned in 4 other decision(s): Abbott Diabetes Care v Powell Gilbert LLP (CoA, 9 January 2025) · Sibio v Abbott Diabetes Care (CoA, 19 August 2024) · Abbott Diabetes Care v Sibio Technology (CFI, UPC_CFI_130/2024, 19 Jun · Abbott Diabetes Care v Sibio Technology (CFI, UPC_CFI_131/2024, 19 Jun	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.