Abbott v Sinocare & Anor (UPC_CFI_587/2025)
Decision date:
22 October 2025
Osborne Clarke summary
- Abbott, a market leader in continuous glucose monitoring (CMG) devices, brought a second application for provisional measures (including preliminary injunction) against China-based manufacturer of CGM systems, including the GlucoMen iCan and corresponding app, Sinocare, and Sinocare's Italy-based exclusive European distributor, Menarini, in relation to another of its patent.
- Abbott claimed that Sinocare and Menarini individually and jointly (directly or indirectly) infringed it patent with unitary effect (EP 471) relating to displays for a medical device. Abbott applied for an immediately enforceable injunction covering the UPCA territory and other provisional measures, including delivery up and provision of information relating to the alleged infringement.
- Sinocare and Menarini were given the opportunity to respond to the application. They asserted that they did not infringe the patent with the GlucoMen iCan and corresponding app because certain features of the claim were not reproduced, and the patent was more likely than not invalid due to lack of inventive step and added matter.
- As in the parallel provisional measures application, jurisdiction was contested with respect to Sinocare due to it not being domiciled in the EU and it claiming that (threatened) infringement by Sinocare in the UPCA territory had not been substantiated. Again, the court rejected these arguments, noting that it was undisputed that Sinocare makes the iCan CGM app available on its website specifically for countries in the UPCA territory and it is the manufacturer of the GlucoMen iCan. Sinocare and Menarini had also announced that they would cooperate in bringing the device into the European market. The court noted that this was at least combined/joint threatened infringement in the UPCA territory. Additionally, as the case concerned the alleged (threatened) infringement of the same patent in the same territory by the same attacked embodiment, Menarini could act as an anchor defendant under Article 7(2) of the recast Brussels Regulation.
- The urgency of Abbott's application was considered next, with the court finding that Abbott had made no unreasonable delay in seeking provisional measures. The Hague LD found that the iCan GMS App only became available in April 2025 and it was not unreasonable for Abbott to file its application just over two months afterwards because it needed time to "assess infringement".
- The court went on to consider claim construction as the parties disagreed on this. The court noted that the claim was particularly directed to a display that is configured to show a so-called timeline graph screen in which certain events are displayed. The Hague LD found Sinocare and Menarini's interpretation of the claim to be more likely than not correct and therefore the relevant feature of the claim was to be interpreted in a way that event data icons must be displayed on or near the graph line of the timeline graph.
- Therefore, a timeline graph screen where the timeline graph is displayed in one panel and the event data icons are displayed in another panel/section were not found to fall within the scope of the patent. Sinocare and Menarini were not found to infringe the patent because the timeline graph screen on the iCan CGM App displayed two separate panels and the event data icons were not included in the timeline graph.
- Due to the non-infringement finding, the court did not consider it necessary to discuss any validity arguments. Abbott's provisional measures application was dismissed and no preliminary injunction was granted.
- Abbott was ordered to pay an interim award of costs of €400,000.
- The parallel provisional measures proceedings between the same parties can be found here.
Issue
Curious about how UPC decisions might impact your business? Have questions about the UPC?
Reach out to our patents team for expert guidance and support.