Sinocare Inc., A. Menarini Diagnostics s.r.l. v. Abbott Diabetes Care Inc., UPC Court of Appeal, 30 March 2026, UPC_CoA_899/2025
The Local Division The Hague had previously issued a preliminary injunction against Chinese company Sinocare and Italian company Menarini on the basis of Unitary Patent EP 4 344 633. Both companies lodged an appeal.
As Menarini had not challenged jurisdiction at first instance, the Court of Appeal dismissed its jurisdictional defence. In any case, that argument was without merit, since Sinocare had offered infringing products through a website accessible to consumers across Europe, which was sufficient to establish jurisdiction and competence.
Sinocare’s role was not limited to that of a supplier to Menarini; it had also actively cooperated with Menarini in relation to the infringement within the UPC. This gave rise to actual or potential damage in the Netherlands, providing an additional basis for jurisdiction and competence.
The Appellants alleged that the first-instance proceedings had been affected by manifest procedural errors. However, the Court found these allegations immaterial, as the Appellants had not claimed that the errors would have produced a different result. Furthermore, the purported errors did not qualify as manifest errors in any event.
Turning to the patent itself, the Court addressed the question of who constitutes the skilled person, characterising this as a legal question and affirming that a court is entitled to formulate its own definition.
The Court of Appeal construed the disputed claim elements in accordance with established case law.
The Court rejected the contention that, where one party advances a particular claim interpretation that goes unchallenged by the other, the Court is bound by it. Rule 171.2 of the Rules of Procedure was found to be inapplicable, as claim construction is a matter of law.
The Court dismissed the Appellants’ proposed interpretation through detailed reasoning, holding, among other things, that a claim is not generally confined to the embodiments described; that the patent itself, rather than the configuration of a later product of the patent proprietor, governs the interpretation of a patent claim; that whether the claim is considered legally valid under the Examiner’s understanding is not determinative of its interpretation; and that figures in the description falling outside the scope of claim 1 cannot be relied upon to construe the claim’s features.
On appeal, the Appellants raised for the first time an added matter objection regarding validity, attributing this late submission to the claim interpretation adopted by the Local Division Düsseldorf.
The Court referred to Rules 222.2(a) and (b) of the Rules of Procedure in addressing this new objection, concluding that the Appellants could and should have raised the added matter argument at first instance. The Court further observed that the argument was, in any event, substantively unmeritorious.
The sufficiency, novelty, and inventive step arguments were likewise rejected following an articulation of the applicable legal standards. In short, the skilled person would have had no incentive to arrive at the claimed invention.
On the question of infringing acts, the Court reaffirmed that infringement liability may extend to a party to whose account the acts of a third party are attributable, including as an instigator, accomplice, or accessory. Both Appellants were found to be infringers.
On the issue of urgency, the Court held in paragraph 228:
“The urgency required for the order of provisional measures is only lacking if the injured party has pursued its claims so negligently and hesitantly that it can objectively be assumed that it has no interest in the rapid enforcement of its rights and it therefore does not appear appropriate to order provisional measures. In this context, it should be noted that no party can be expected to initiate proceedings without preparation. Rather, an adequate preparation of the proceedings is required. The applicant should only apply for a preliminary injunction if it has reliable knowledge of all the facts that make legal action in PI proceedings promising.”
The Court upheld the finding of “necessity” and awarded interim damages on appeal at 50% of the applicable cost ceiling.
Finally, the Court held that a broadly drafted injunction was warranted in order to ensure that minor modifications to the product would remain within its scope.
The Decision can be read here.
