Sinocare v Abbott Diabetes Care (CoA, 30 March 2026)

Dhenne Avocats · 10 October 2026

Our analysis

Summary

By order of 30 March 2026, the Court of Appeal rules on the appeal of Sinocare and A. Menarini Diagnostics against the order of The Hague Local Division of 17 October 2025, which, at the request of Abbott Diabetes Care, had granted a preliminary injunction based on EP 4 344 633 against the GlucoMen iCan continuous glucose monitoring system. It holds the appeal admissible but unfounded (paragraph 17). It confirms the UPC’s jurisdiction over a Chinese manufacturer whose products are intended for the Contracting Member States, the likely validity and infringement of claims 1 and 15, urgency and the necessity of the measures between direct competitors, and awards Abbott an interim payment of EUR 200,000 towards costs. The order is useful on jurisdiction over defendants established outside the EU and on the effect of Rule 222 on appeal.

Facts and procedure

Abbott Diabetes Care, proprietor of the patent, which stems from a divisional application (paragraphs 1 and 2), applied to The Hague Local Division on 4 July 2025 against Sinocare, which manufactures the GlucoMen iCan, and Menarini, which markets it (paragraphs 6, 7 and 9). The division accepted jurisdiction, found urgency, likely infringement of claims 1 and 15 and no likely invalidity. It granted an immediately enforceable injunction for the UPC territory, ordered disclosure of information and delivery up subject to penalty payments, refused to make the injunction conditional on security and awarded EUR 11,000 in interim costs (paragraphs 10 and 11).

The applicable law

International jurisdiction over a defendant established outside the EU rests on Art. 71b(2) of Regulation 1215/2012 read with Art. 7(2), the local division’s internal competence on Art. 33(1)(a) UPCA (paragraphs 24 and 33). Provisional measures are governed by Art. 62 UPCA and Rule 211, the applicant having to justify their necessity (Rule 206.2(c), paragraphs 237 to 239). Rule 222.2 allows the Court of Appeal to disregard submissions not made at first instance (paragraph 124).

Question

Was the local division right to accept jurisdiction over a manufacturer established in China and to find the patent likely valid and infringed, in the light of the new arguments raised on appeal?

Decision

Menarini, which did not contest jurisdiction at first instance, cannot do so on appeal (paragraph 21). Manufacturing and selling products intended for the Contracting Member States creates a likelihood of damage in that territory, even where the acts are performed abroad, which founds jurisdiction over Sinocare and the division’s internal competence (paragraphs 22 to 24, 32 and 33). The new added matter arguments, which could have been raised at first instance, are disregarded (paragraphs 124 to 128). Invalidity is not more likely than not (paragraphs 131 to 208). Infringement of claims 1 and 15 is likely, Menarini being the direct infringer and Sinocare liable under Art. 63 UPCA (paragraphs 209 to 225). Abbott acted without delay, about one month after grant (paragraphs 227 to 236). Irreparable harm is not a necessary condition: direct competition and the risk of lasting price erosion, both in the cash pay segment and in the reimbursement segment where tenders are awarded for two years, justify the measures, while the harm alleged by the appellants is not evidenced (paragraphs 240 to 250). The generally worded injunction is upheld, Abbott having clarified that it does not cover the Sinocare iCan i3, and delivery up of stock is not disproportionate (paragraphs 252 to 256). The appeal is rejected. The appellants bear the costs, without joint and several liability, and must pay within fourteen days an interim award of EUR 200,000, being 50% of the ceiling for a value of EUR 4,000,000 (paragraphs 260 to 266).

Key points for practice

• A defendant that does not contest jurisdiction at first instance in principle forgoes that objection on appeal (paragraph 21).
• A manufacturer established outside the EU may be sued before the UPC where its products are intended for the Contracting Member States (paragraphs 22 to 24, 32 and 33).
• Invalidity arguments that could have been raised at first instance are liable to be disregarded on appeal (paragraphs 124 to 128).
• An interim costs award on appeal is in principle set at 50% of the ceiling for recoverable costs (paragraphs 264 to 266).
• Practical point: in provisional proceedings, every jurisdiction and invalidity argument must be put to the local division, the appeal is no place to complete a defence (paragraphs 21 and 124 to 128).

Provisions applied

Agreement on a Unified Patent Court

Arts 25, 33(1)(a), 62, 63, 67(1) and 69(1)

Rules of Procedure

Rules 19.7, 205, 206.2, 209.1, 211, 222, 237 and 354.2

European Patent Convention

Art. 54(1), Art. 69 and Art. 138(1)(b)

Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012

Arts 7(2), 24, 26(1) and 71b

Case law cited

Aylo v Dish, Court of Appeal, 3 September 2024, NanoString v 10x Genomics, Court of Appeal, 26 February 2024, Barco v Yealink, Court of Appeal, 28 November 2025, Amgen v Sanofi, Court of Appeal, 25 November 2025, Philips v Belkin, Court of Appeal, 3 October 2025, Mammut v Ortovox, Court of Appeal, 25 September 2024, Boehringer Ingelheim v Zentiva, Court of Appeal, 13 August 2025, Biolitec v Light Guide, Court of Appeal, 24 February 2025, Abbott v Sibio, Court of Appeal, 14 February 2025, also VusionGroup v Hanshow (Court of Appeal, 13 May 2024), Insulet v EOFlow (Court of Appeal, UPC_CoA_768/2024), Meril v Edwards (Court of Appeal, 25 November 2025), Alexion (Court of Appeal, 19 June 2025, UPC_CoA_405/2024) and Sumi Agro v Syngenta (Court of Appeal, 3 March 2025). Court of Justice of the European Union, Pinckney, 3 October 2013, C-170/12.

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.