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

Seriously deficient disclosure process not sufficient to reopen costs order - Cabo v MGA
08 April 2026
A High Court decision highlighting the consequences of inadequate disclosure searches under PD57AD and reaffirming that costs orders are final, even where later failures come to light.
​
UPC Court of appeal issues final decision, despite no finding on infringement at first instance
30 March 2026
In Rematec v Europe Forestry, the UPC Court of Appeal overturned the Mannheim Local Division’s revocation of the patent and, applying Article 75(1) UPCA, issued a final decision on both validity and infringement despite no infringement finding at first instance. The Court adopted a narrower, description‑led approach to claim interpretation, confirmed the patent’s validity, found infringement, and granted final remedies without referring the case back to the Court of First Instance.
​
Litigation insurance as security for costs
30 March 2026
In Syntorr v Arthrex, the UPC Court of Appeal clarified that while litigation insurance is not itself a form of security under Rule 158 RoP, it is a relevant factor when deciding whether security for costs should be ordered at all. By failing to consider the claimant’s insurance policy, the Munich Local Division wrongly exercised its discretion. The Court set aside the €2 million security order and confirmed that insurance can mitigate concerns about cost recoverability.
​