Sibio Technology Limited v Abbott Diabetes Care Inc., UPC Court of Appeal, 27 February 2026, UPC_CoA_884/2025
The UPC Court of Appeal has rejected an application by Sibio pursuant to R. 36 RoP for an order permitting further exchanges of written pleadings in appeal proceedings concerning revocation proceedings concerning Abbott’s European patent no. EP 3 831 283 B1. The Paris Central Division had dismissed Sibio’s revocation action. Sibio appealed. Sibio lodged its Statement of appeal and grounds of appeal on 21 November 2025; Abbott filed its Statement of response on 24 February 2026.
Abbott argued in its Statement that, in the alternative to the confirmation of the appealed judgment, the patent in suit should be upheld according to one of six auxiliary requests that it had filed in the first instance proceedings. Sibio argued that this justified a further exchange of written pleadings, so that the parties could submit arguments regarding the auxiliary requests.
The Court of Appeal dismissed Sibio’s application. The auxiliary requests had been submitted during the first instance proceedings and accordingly formed part of the requests, facts and evidence submitted at first instance that could be considered on appeal by the Court of Appeal. Abbott was not seeking to cross-appeal – it did not disagree in any way with the decision of the CFI; Abbott only maintained the position it had adopted at first instance. Given that Sibio had had the opportunity to comment on the auxiliary requests during the first instance proceedings and in its Statement of grounds of appeal, not allowing further pleadings would not be contrary to the principles of due process (in particular, the principles of fairness, equity and the right to be heard). Furthermore Sibio would have the opportunity to respond to Abbott’s Statement of response at the oral hearing of the appeal.
A copy of the decision can be found here.
