Paris Local Division Revokes another DexCom Patent

​
Darren Smyth
​
January 22, 2025
#
UPC
Table of contents
  • Toc Heading
  • Toc Heading

DexCom, Inc. v Abbott Laboratories and 13 other Abbott entities UPC_CFI_395/2023

Decision of 11 December (ORD_63909/2024[1])

The second decision on the merits from the UPC came from the Paris Local Division and revoked DexCom's patent EP3435866 asserted against Abbott.[2] This decision is a similar case with a similar outcome.

DexCom asserted its patent EP3831282 against a number of Abbott entities, who counterclaimed for revocation of the patent.

An added matter attack raised for the first time in the rejoinder was deemed late filed and inadmissible. The Court only considered the sole ground raised in the original counterclaim, namely lack of inventive step. On this ground, the Court indeed found that the claims did not involve an inventive step when considered in view of "Valdes" combined with "Goodnow", prior art documents cited in the counterclaim.

Three auxiliary requests presented by DexCom were considered to involve added matter.

Accordingly, the Court ordered the revocation of the patent.

In view of the finding on validity, infringement was not considered.


[1] https://www.unified-patent-court.org/en/node/1319

[2] Reported here: https://eip.com/uk/latest/article/paris_local_division_revokes_dexcom_patent/

Recent Case Reports

See all Case Reports

Litigants in person and IP risk: Lessons from Banham v Rogers
26 March 2026
The High Court’s judgment in Banham v Rogers provides a stark warning for SMEs defending intellectual property claims without professional advice. Acting as a litigant in person, the defendant misunderstood key technical issues, failed to comply with procedural requirements, and mismanaged correspondence and evidence. These cumulative errors left the court with no realistic defence to consider, leading to summary judgment and public reputational damage. The case underlines the importance of obtaining specialist IP advice at an early stage to avoid avoidable and compounding litigation risks.
​
Clarification of international jurisdiction
26 March 2026
The UPC Court of Appeal has clarified that where jurisdiction is based on Article 7(2) of the Brussels Regulation (place of harm), it is limited to damage occurring within UPC territory. In Keeex v Adobe, the Court set aside the Paris Local Division’s decision to hear infringement claims relating to non‑UPCA states, confirming that broader territorial reach requires satisfaction of the strict conditions under Article 71b(3).
​
Language protections don’t bite if you have a website
25 March 2026
In KeyMed v PR Medical, the Milan Local Division of the Unified Patent Court rejected a preliminary objection seeking to change the language of proceedings from English to Italian under Rule 14.2(b) RoP. Although the defendant was an Italian company and the action was brought before the Italian local division, the court held that the language protection did not apply because the alleged infringement was not confined to Italy.
​