REGISTER now: Visser ai webinar - BEYOND THE HYPE: AI IN PATENT PROSECUTION
​

Paris Local Division Revokes another DexCom Patent

​
Darren Smyth
​
January 22, 2025
Additional information
Chevron icon
Info
Tags
UPC
Table of contents
Chevron icon
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

Invalidity of juicer patent upheld on appeal
03 November 2026
The Court of Appeal upheld the invalidity of Hurom’s juicer patent for lack of inventive step, while clarifying the admissibility requirements for patent amendments and the use of the unamended description when construing amended claims. It also confirmed the UPC’s jurisdiction over infringement in Poland despite Poland not being a UPCA Contracting Member State, but found that Hurom had failed to establish infringement under Polish law.
​
Evidence preservation doesn’t stretch to interrogation
03 November 2026
The Court of Appeal confirmed that evidence-preservation orders may be granted ex parte where there is a demonstrable risk that evidence could be destroyed or become unavailable, and that such orders may extend to relevant commercial and promotional documents. However, Art. 60 UPCA does not permit a bailiff or expert to question the defendant’s personnel on substantive technical matters, which must instead be handled under the Court’s control.
​
UPC Court of Appeal clarifies claim construction, the role of party experts, and provisional measures in direct-competition cases
03 November 2026
The CoA’s decision of 30 April 2025 in Insulet v EOFlow provides important guidance on claim construction, the role of party-appointed experts and the requirements for provisional injunctions.
​