Abbott Laboratories v DexCom (CoA, 14 March 2024)

Dhenne Avocats · 10 October 2026

Our analysis

Summary

By order of 14 March 2024 (UPC_CoA_5/2024, PR_APL_189/2024), made under Rule 229.5 RoP, the President of the Court of Appeal rejected as inadmissible Abbott’s appeal against the confidentiality order made on 19 December 2023 by the judge-rapporteur of the Paris Local Division (UPC_CFI_230/2023, ORD_589749/2023) in the infringement action brought by DexCom. Abbott challenged the ceiling of the penalty payment, set at EUR 50,000 per breach, and had then withdrawn its appeal. According to the headnote, an appeal lodged without leave under Rule 220.2 RoP is inadmissible from the outset and therefore cannot be withdrawn.

Question

Can an appeal lodged under Rule 220.2 RoP without leave from the Court of First Instance be withdrawn, or must it be rejected as inadmissible?

Decision

Rule 220.2 RoP allows an appeal against orders other than those referred to in Rules 220.1 and 97.5 RoP only where the Court of First Instance has granted leave. Abbott showed no such leave, the judge-rapporteur having stated that leave was not granted at that stage of the proceedings. The appeal was inadmissible from the outset and could not be withdrawn. Since the appellants had already been heard by the Registry on whether leave had been granted, there was no need to hear them again (Rule 229.5, second sentence, RoP).

Key points for practice

• Before appealing a procedural order, check that leave to appeal has actually been granted. Otherwise, withdrawing the appeal will not avoid an order of inadmissibility.

Provisions applied

Rules of Procedure

Rules 97.5, 220.1, 220.2, 224.1, 229.5, 262A and 333

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.