Abbott Diabetes Care, Inc v Sibio Technology Limited, UPC CFI The Hague LD, 19 June 2024, Reference numbers: UPC_CFI_131/2024; ACT_14945/2024
Order pursuant to R. 211 RoP (preliminary injunction)
Abbott was the proprietor of EP 3 831 283, which concerned continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) devices. Sibio entered the European market with its CGM “GS1” device at the end of 2023. Abbott commenced an application for a preliminary injunction and other preliminary measures, which Sibio opposed.
In particular, Sibio argued that the Patent was likely to be held to be invalid due to added matter, lack of novelty and lack of inventive step. Sibio also disputed that the Court had competence for the territory of Ireland – Abbott elected to drop the PI application in so far as it concerned Ireland.
The Court noted that R. 211.2 RoP, in conjunction with Art. 62(4) UPCA, provides that the Court may invite the applicant for provisional measures to provide reasonable evidence to satisfy the Court to a sufficient degree of certainty that the applicant is entitled to institute proceedings under Art. 47 UPCA, that the patent is valid and that his right is being infringed, or that infringement is imminent. After a lengthy analysis of the added matter issues, the Court held that, on the balance of probabilities, it was more likely than not that claim 1 and (consequently) the asserted dependent claims would be held to be invalid on the basis of added matter.
Abbott’s application was therefore rejected. However, note that in parallel proceedings Abbott was successful in obtaining a preliminary injunction from the same local division in respect of Sibio’s device, that PI application only being opposed (unsuccessfully) on the ground that it was devoid of purpose.
The order can be read here.