UPC CFI, The Hague , 17 October 2025 : Provisional injunction granted in UPC territory,

Provisional injunction granted for UPC territory in view of the likelihood of infringement and validity (Article 62 UPCA, Article 25 UPCA, Article 34 UPCA,  R. 211(1)(b) RoP , Rule 206 RoP).

Novelty (Article 54 EPC): None of the prior art documents disclose a single separate sensor assembly comprising all the features of claim 1. 

The prior art does not disclose a sharp as part of a sensor assembly as required by claim 1 of the patent. The sharp in the prior art is part of a separate sub-assembly . 

Inventive step (Article 56 EPC): It is not apparent how the skilled person, starting from any of the arrangements disclosed in the Dexcom patent family, would modify the parts disclosed therein to arrive at the sensor assembly of claim 1 and at the kit of claim 15 of the patent .

There is no incentive to bring the sharp together with the other features required by claim 1 of the patent to yield the sensor assembly according to claim 1 prior to insertion, ensuring an easy-to use application of the on-body device. 

This would require a completely different insertion procedure into the user’s skin, with differently designed components, which is not suggested in the prior art at hand. 

In addition, the role of the anisotropic zebra is not disclosed, especially not as a seal enclosing the contacts portion of the sensor.

Infringement (Article 25 UPCA): More likely than not that Defendants infringe the patent with their GlucoMen iCan.

Defendants assert that the GlucoMen iCan does not use features 1.4 and 1.6 of the patent . These non-infringement arguments (only) hold if the limited interpretation of these features proposed by Defendants were followed. In view of the correct claim interpretation discussed above, these features are also met in the GlucoMen iCan. 

It is not disputed that features 1.1, 1.2, 1.3 and 1.5 are also present. 

The provisionally established infringement warrants a generally worded injunction. (Rule. 211 RoP) . Abbott explained convincingly that an injunction is necessary and urgent at this moment to avoid Defendants from (further) entering the reimbursement market and to avoid further sales via ‘cash pay’. 

A provisional injunction is deemed proportionate in view of the infringement. 

Defendants’ request to make the injunction subject to security is dismissed as is it not argued or demonstrated that there is a risk that Abbott will not or is unable to pay Defendants’ damages.

The request to declare that the GlucoMen iCan is considered “goods suspected of infringing an intellectual property right”, is dismissed. 

Whatever the merits, such declaration is not possible as a provisional measure.

IPPT20251017, UPC CFI, LD The Hague, Abbott Diabetes v Sinocare