Sibio v Abbott Diabetes Care (CoA, 14 August 2026)

Dhenne Avocats · 10 October 2026

Our analysis

Summary

In a decision of 14 August 2026 (UPC_CoA_884/2025), the UPC Court of Appeal dismissed Sibio Technology Limited’s appeal against the Paris Central Division decision rejecting its revocation action against Abbott Diabetes Care Inc.’s EP 3 831 283, which concerns an on-body glucose monitoring unit. The court rejected both the added matter objection, based on the omission of an elastomeric seal, and the inventive step attack. The decision matters for validity disputes generally: it sets the test for intermediate generalisations and anchors the analysis in the technical effect of the invention.

Facts and procedure

The patent derives from a second-generation divisional application filed on 11 December 2012, claiming priority of 11 December 2011, and was not opposed. In earlier provisional measures proceedings between Abbott and Sibio, the Court of Appeal had held the patent more likely than not to be valid (paragraph 4). On 21 July 2025 the Paris Central Division dismissed Sibio’s revocation action (UPC_CFI_231/2024), maintained the patent as granted and ordered Sibio to pay the costs. Sibio appealed on 22 September 2025 and the oral hearing took place on 22 June 2026. The decision bears the date of 13 August 2026 in its heading and 14 August 2026 in its closing line.

The applicable law

Article 65(2) UPCA refers to the grounds for revocation in Article 138(1) EPC, point (c) of which covers subject-matter extending beyond the content of the application as filed. The court applied the « gold standard » of the EPO Enlarged Board of Appeal (G 2/10) to each earlier application in the chain of divisionals (paragraph 30).

Question

Does claim 1, which takes from an embodiment the recess receiving the sensor support from below without the elastomeric seal described with it, extend beyond the content of the application, and does the invention lack inventive step?

Decision

An intermediate generalisation, where some features are taken from an embodiment while others presented in combination with them are left out, is generally unallowable where the omitted features are clearly linked, functionally or structurally, to the claimed ones (paragraph 33). The court declined to treat an « omitted essential element » as a separate category: the only question is whether the claim covers subject-matter beyond the application (paragraph 34). The technical effect sought and the omitted feature’s contribution to it show whether that feature is essential (paragraph 35). The seal protects the electrical connection without creating it and is not structurally linked to the claimed features (paragraph 41), omitting it adds no new technical information, as the skilled person would choose a known sealing method (paragraph 55). The same applies to claim 15 (paragraph 59), so the auxiliary requests did not need to be considered (paragraph 60).

On inventive step, the embodiment in Figures 150 to 156 of WO 2011/119896 is not a reasonable starting point, as it does not solve the objective problem of allowing the device to move freely before application (paragraphs 62 and 67 to 71). Nothing would prompt the skilled person to combine it with US 2008/255440, which does not disclose the recess features and mounts the enclosure from above (paragraphs 74 to 77). The appeal was dismissed and Sibio bears the costs of the appeal.

Key points for practice

• An intermediate generalisation objection is assessed under a single test, the content of the application, whatever label the revocation claimant uses (paragraph 34).
• The technical effect of the invention guides whether an omitted feature is inextricably linked to the claimed features (paragraph 35).
• Prior art that does not solve the objective problem is not a reasonable starting point, which alone defeats the inventive step attack (paragraph 71).
• Practical point: a revocation claimant must show a concrete functional or structural link between the omitted feature and the technical effect, joint presentation in the description is not enough.

Provisions applied

Agreement on a Unified Patent Court

Art. 65(2)

Rules of Procedure

Rules 220.1(a) and 222.2

European Patent Convention

Art. 138(1)(c)

Case law cited

Court of Appeal, Abbott v Sibionics, UPC_CoA_382/2024, Court of Appeal, Amgen v Sanofi-Aventis Deutschland, 25 November 2025

Related decisions

• Sibio v Abbott Diabetes Care, 21 July 2025, Paris Central Division decision dismissing the revocation action, upheld on appeal.

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.