Sibio Technology Limited v. Abbott Diabetes Care Inc., UPC Court of Appeal, 13 August 2026, Case no. UPC-CoA-884/2025
Intermediate generalisation, added matter
Sibio’s claim for revocation of Abbott’s patent EP 3 831 283 was dismissed by the Paris Central Division. Sibio subsequently appealed the decision with respect to added matter. The Court of Appeal also dismissed Sibio’s claim.
Sibio argued that there was a so-called intermediate generalisation. Relevant are the general considerations the Court of Appeal made with respect to intermediate generalisations as summarised in the headnotes:
1) One situation where added matter may arise is when claimed subject-matter is obtained by importing one or more features from a certain embodiment in the application into a claim, while omitting one or more other features of this embodiment which were presented in combination with the imported feature(s) in the disclosure of this embodiment.
This is referred to as an ’intermediate generalisation’. This is generally considered to be unallowable if there is a clearly recognisable functional or structural relationship among the omitted feature(s) and the claim features, also referred to ’an extricable link’ between the omitted feature(s) and the claim features.
2) The technical effect that the invention aims to achieve, and whether an omitted feature contributes thereto, is relevant for the assessment of added matter. It is relevant when considering whether the skilled person would understand from the disclosure of the application as a whole that there is a structural or functional relationship between the omitted feature and the other features of the claimed embodiment or, in other words, when considering whether there is an inextricable link with such other features or, yet differently worded, whether such omitted feature is essential to the invention.
A copy of the Decision can be read here.
