Sibio Technology v Abbott Diabetes Care (CFI, 21 July 2025)

Dhenne Avocats · 10 October 2026

Our analysis

Summary

By decision of 21 July 2025, the Paris Central Division dismisses the revocation action brought by Sibio Technology against Abbott Diabetes Care’s European patent EP 3 831 283 B1, which concerns an on-body glucose monitoring device, and maintains the patent as granted. The decision is chiefly of interest on procedure: the panel excludes as late the novelty attacks based on a document previously relied on only for inventive step, together with added-matter objections to dependent claims that had not been raised at the outset (paragraphs 12 to 22). It also holds that Rule 75(3) does not apply to a counterclaim for revocation filed before a local division after the oral hearing before the central division (paragraph 8). On the merits, the decision departs from The Hague Local Division’s assessment and aligns with the Court of Appeal, which had found the patent likely valid in the provisional measures proceedings.

Facts and procedure

Sibio filed the revocation action on 15 May 2024, relying on added matter, lack of novelty and lack of inventive step (paragraphs 1 and 4). Abbott filed its defence on 2 October 2024 with six auxiliary requests, refiled on 16 January 2025 in a separate workflow (paragraphs 23 and 25). In the provisional measures proceedings between the same parties, The Hague Local Division had refused relief on 19 June 2024, finding the patent likely invalid for added matter. The Court of Appeal overturned that order on 14 February 2025 (paragraph 26). Sibio applied under Rule 9 for the auxiliary requests to be disregarded (paragraphs 27 and 29). The oral hearing took place on 4 June 2025, Sibio then lodged a counterclaim for revocation of the same patent before The Hague Local Division (paragraph 8). The value of the action had been set at EUR 2,500,000.

The applicable law

The panel recalls that parties must set out their full case as early as possible and that the statement for revocation must state the grounds, facts and evidence relied on (Rule 44, paragraphs 12 and 13). New arguments may be admitted in particular circumstances, notably where they answer the defence, but the claimant bears the burden of showing that, with due care, it could not have raised them earlier (paragraphs 19 to 21). The right to request amendment forms part of the right of defence (Art. 138(2) EPC and Art. 65(3) UPCA), failure to use the electronic form under Rule 4 does not render the application inadmissible (paragraph 30). Added matter is assessed under the direct and unambiguous disclosure standard (paragraph 68).

Question

Are attacks raised after the statement for revocation admissible, and is EP 3 831 283 B1 invalid for added matter, lack of novelty or lack of inventive step?

Decision

The late attacks are excluded without examination on the merits (paragraph 22). The auxiliary requests are admissible but need not be considered (paragraphs 30, 31 and 163). Claims 1 and 15 contain no added matter (paragraphs 64 to 106), are novel over D1 and D3 (paragraphs 107 to 130) and involve an inventive step starting from either D3 or D2 (paragraphs 131 to 159), the dependent claims are not invalid either (paragraphs 160 to 162). The action is dismissed, the patent maintained as granted and Sibio ordered to bear the costs (Art. 69(1) UPCA, paragraph 164).

Key points for practice

• A document announced against novelty but argued only for inventive step does not found a novelty attack: the two grounds are separate.
• Grounds for revoking dependent claims must be stated in the statement for revocation, even though those claims depend on the independent claims.
• An auxiliary request filed outside the prescribed workflow remains admissible: the panel declines to turn a defect in electronic form into a loss of the right to amend.
• Practical point: a revocation claimant should build its full case, claim by claim, in the statement for revocation and not rely on the reply to complete it.

Provisions applied

Agreement on a Unified Patent Court

Art. 65(3), Art. 69(1) and Art. 76(2)

Rules of Procedure

Rules 4, 9, 30, 44 and 75(3)

European Patent Convention

Art. 54, 56, 69 and 138(2)

Case law cited

Abbott Diabetes Care v Sibio, Court of Appeal, 14 February 2025, 10x Genomics, Court of Appeal, 26 February 2024, SES-imagotag v Hanshow, Court of Appeal, 13 May 2024, Court of Appeal, 21 November 2024 (UPC_CoA_456/2024), The Hague Local Division, 19 June 2024 (UPC_CFI_131/2024), Düsseldorf Local Division, 8 May 2025 (UPC_CFI_11/2024), Paris Local Division, 3 July 2024 (UPC_CFI_230/2023), Munich Central Division, 17 October 2024 (UPC_CFI_252/2023), Düsseldorf Local Division, 10 October 2024 (UPC_CFI_363/2023).

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.