{"id":1793,"date":"2025-02-19T17:33:43","date_gmt":"2025-02-19T17:33:43","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/ipfray.com\/?p=1793"},"modified":"2025-02-19T17:33:43","modified_gmt":"2025-02-19T17:33:43","slug":"injunctions-can-be-awarded-on-general-terms-upcs-court-of-appeal-grants-abbott-pi-in-glucose-monitoring-device-dispute","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/ipfray.com\/staging1\/injunctions-can-be-awarded-on-general-terms-upcs-court-of-appeal-grants-abbott-pi-in-glucose-monitoring-device-dispute\/","title":{"rendered":"Injunctions can be awarded on general terms: UPC\u2019s Court of Appeal grants Abbott PI in glucose monitoring device dispute"},"content":{"rendered":"\n
\n

Context:<\/strong> On 20 March 2024, Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. filed an application for a preliminary injunction (PI) in the Unified Patent Court\u2019s (UPC) Local Division in The Hague against Chinese medical manufacturer Sibio Technology Limited and its European partner company Umedwings Netherlands. Abbott alleged that Sibio\u2019s GS1 continuous glucose monitor was infringing EP831283. However, last June, the Local Division in The Hague denied the application against Sibio (while granting the one against Umedwings), ruling that, due to added subject matter, the patent would more likely than not be held to be invalid in proceedings on the merits (June 25, 2024 ip fray<\/strong> article<\/a>). Abbott appealed against the Sibio order. It should be noted that it has been impossible for about a week to access the UPC public case registry, and the Decisions & Orders page hasn\u2019t been updated during the same period, but ip fray<\/strong> is still keeping an eye on UPC developments, including this one.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

What\u2019s new:<\/strong> The UPC\u2019s Court of Appeal (CoA) on Friday reversed the lower court\u2019s decision and granted Abbott the PI. The CoA ruled that the claim would “not more likely than not” be held to be invalid due to added matter in the main proceedings. Sibio and Umedwings had also presented novelty and inventive step arguments, but the CoA rejected those too. It found that it was more likely than not that their device would be held to infringe upon the claim.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Direct impact and wider ramifications: <\/strong>Most notably, the CoA’s decision settled a debate in the UPC by stating that an injunction can be awarded on general terms, without the need to restrict it to specific infringing products. \u201cThe need for a limitation of the issued injunction to the specific infringing products cannot be inferred from Art. 62(1) UPCA,\u201d it held.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n\n\n\n

The patent involved in the dispute is:<\/p>\n\n\n\n