Sibio v Abbott Diabetes Care (CoA, 19 August 2024)

Dhenne Avocats · 10 October 2026

Our analysis

Summary

In an order of 19 August 2024 (UPC_CoA_388/2024), the Court of Appeal granted suspensive effect to the appeal of Sibio Technology and Umedwings Netherlands against the provisional measures ordered on 19 June 2024 by The Hague Local Division in favour of Abbott Diabetes Care (UPC_CFI_130/2024, EP 2 713 879), but only insofar as that order extends to Ireland. Ireland, having signed but not ratified the Agreement, is not a Contracting Member State: including it meant granting more than had been requested.

Question

Is a request for suspensive effect included in the statement of appeal admissible, and does extending a preliminary injunction to a State that has signed but not ratified the Agreement justify suspending enforcement?

Decision

The request may be included in the statement of appeal without a separate CMS workflow. It then follows the ordinary timetable, a separate application remaining advisable in urgent cases (paragraphs 4 and 5). As an appeal has no suspensive effect as a rule (Art. 74(1) UPCA), an exception requires, in particular, a manifestly erroneous order or an appeal rendered pointless by enforcement (paragraphs 6 and 7). Abbott sought an injunction for the Contracting Member States in which the patent is in force. The Local Division read Ireland into that request (paragraph 9). Only a State that has both signed and ratified the Agreement is a Contracting Member State (Art. 84(2) UPCA), so the Local Division granted more than requested, contrary to Art. 76 UPCA (paragraphs 10 and 11), and Sibio’s failure to contest jurisdiction over Ireland made no difference (paragraph 12). For the remainder, no manifest error or overriding interest was shown (paragraph 13).

Key points for practice

• A request covering “the Contracting Member States” extends only to States that have ratified the Agreement. Ireland is not among them.
• A request for suspensive effect may be included in the statement of appeal, but it will then be decided only after the statement of response.

Provisions applied

Agreement on a Unified Patent Court

Arts 74(1), 76 and 84(2)

Rules of Procedure

Rule 223

Case law cited

Ocado Innovation, Court of Appeal, 6 November 2023 (UPC_CoA_407/2023), Meril Life Sciences v Edwards Lifesciences, Court of Appeal, 18 January 2024 (UPC_CoA_4/2024)

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.