UPC CFI, LD The Hague, 22 October 2025: PI dismissed - infringement not more likely than not

Request for a provisional injunction and additional measures dismissed. Infringement not more likely than not  (R. 211 RoP). 

Jurisdiction because of combined/joint threatened infringement by Sinocare and Menarini in UPCA territory of the same patent in the same territory with the same product (Article 7(2) BR). Not in dispute is that Sinocare makes the iCan CGM App available on its website, specifically also for countries within UPCA territory, and that it is the manufacturer of the GlucoMen iCan and named as such in the Eudamed entry for the GlucoMen iCan and in the user guide. Furthermore, Menarini and Sinocare announced that they would cooperate in bringing the Glucomen iCan to the European market. At least there is then combined/joint threatened infringement in UPCA territory. Furthermore, this concerns alleged (threatened) infringement of the same patent in the same territory with the same product. Jurisdiction vis-à-vis Sinocare can therefore be based on Art. 7(2) BR. 

No unreasonable delay of 2 months to assess infringement before starting these proceedings on 27 June 2025. (R. 211.4 RoP). 

Claim interpretation - the feature that ‘(...) the timeline graph includes event data icons (318)’ - equivalents (Article 69 EPC). More likely than not that this feature requires the event data icons to be displayed on the timeline graph itself, i.e. in case the timeline graph screen has several panels, this feature teaches that the data icons must be displayed on the panel showing the timeline graph. It is important to note that UP 471 focuses specifically on the layout of the display for the receiver unit of a glucose monitoring system. In fact, the layout of the display is the main teaching of the patent, describing and claiming the layout of the display with/in great detail. A difference in the layout of the display is therefore meaningful and can be a key point, even though another layout may have the same function. No infringement because the event data icons are not included in the timeline graph. 

Interim award of costs of € 400.000. The Court considers that also the applicant in a case concerning the application for provisional measures, may be ordered to pay an interim award of costs, should this not be considered clear from R. 211.1(d). Such interpretation follows the principle of proper and fair administration of justice. 

IPPT20251022, UPC CFI, LD The Hague, Abbott Diabetes v Sinocare