Arctic
Invent
Case Registry
Dashboard
Case Explorer
Back to Explorer
Update Case Entry
Manually curate individual case documents inside the PostgreSQL engine.
Case Lawsuit Title
*
Case / Trial ID Number
Jurisdiction Code
*
us
in
upc
eu
Category
*
Patent
Trademark
Copyright
Design
Filing Date
Decision Verdict Date
Court / Tribunal
Bench / Panel Judges
Petitioner / Claimant (Plaintiff)
DexCom, Inc
Respondent / Defendant
Abbott Laboratories
Dispute Summary
This UPC Court of Appeal decision clarifies a fundamental procedural requirement: the necessity of obtaining leave to appeal. The case involved an attempt by Abbott Laboratories to challenge a confidentiality order issued in a patent infringement suit brought by DexCom, Inc. Despite withdrawing their appeal after learning that no leave had been granted, the Court of Appeal ruled it inadmissible from the start. This ruling serves as a strong reminder for practitioners regarding strict adherence to procedural rules when filing appeals within the UPC.
Outcome / Ruling
dismissed
Verdict Document PDF URL
Full text judgment
UPC Court of Appeal UPC_CoA_5/2024 PR_APL_189/2024 ORDER of the President of the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court issued on 14 March 2024 pursuant to Rule 229.5 RoP HAEDNOTE Under Rule 220.2 RoP an appeal from an order without leave is inadmissible from the outset and, as such, cannot be withdrawn. KEYWORDS Inadmissibility, leave to appeal. APPLICANTS AND APPELLANTS (1) Abbott Laboratories (2) Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. (3) Abbott France (4) Abbott (S.V./N.V.) (5) Abbott B.V. (6) Abbott S.r.l. (7) Abbott Scandinavia Aktiebolag (8) Abbott GmbH (9) Abbott Diagnostics GmbH (10) Abbott Logistics B.V. Represented by: Christian Dekoninck, Patricia Cappuyns, François Pochart, Wim Maas, Eelco Bergsma, Mag. Thomas Adocker, Dr. Dietrich Kamlah, Dr. Christian Lederer and Dr. Gisbert Hohagen RESPONDENT DexCom, Inc Represented by: Anne-Charlotte Le Bihan and Laurent Labatte 2 DECIDING JUDGE Klaus Grabinski, President of the Court of Appeal IMPUGNED ORDER Order of the Court of First Instance (Paris Local Division) of 19/12/2023 – ORD_589749/2023 UPC_CFI_230/2023 ACT_546446/2023 SUMMARY OF FACTS AND INDICATION OF PLEADINGS Respondent brought a claim for infringement of a European patent against Appellants in the Court of First Instance (Paris Local Division). Upon request of the Appellants, the judge-rapporteur issued on 19 December 2023 a confidentiality order under R. 262A RoP. In the order it was provided that in case of a breach of the order the Court, upon request of the Appellants, could impose a fine of up to 50.000 € for each single case of breach. In the order it was also mentioned that “the present Order may be appealable according to R. 220.2 RoP or may be reviewed by the panel according to R. 333 RoP. On 3 January 2024 the Appellants filed an appeal under Rule 220.2 Rules of Procedure (RoP) contesting the ceiling of the penalty amount as set by the judge-rapporteur in her order of 19 December 2023 as too low compared to the ceiling of a penalty amount set in another case but with similar background by the Munich Local Division and requesting that the ceiling of the penalty amount should be raised to 250.000 €. On 10 January 2024 the Registry of the Court of Appeal enquired of the Appellants as to why, in their view, leave to an appeal has been granted. On 12 January 2024 and referring to a communication received from the Judge-rapporteur of the Paris Local Division in which it was said that “leave to appeal under R. 220.2 RoP as requested is not granted at this stage of the proceedings”, Appellants withdrew the appeal. The Registry informed the President of the Court of Appeal under Rule 229.5 RoP that Appellants have not met the requirements of Rules 224.1(b), 220.2 RoP. REASONS FOR THE ORDER Pursuant to Rule 220.2 RoP, orders other than those referred to in Rules 220.1 and 97.5 RoP may be appealed only if the Court of First instance has granted leave to appeal. It does not appear from the submissions of Appellants that such leave has been granted by the Court of First Instance. Rather, the judge-rapporteur of the Court of First Instance stated in her communication that leave to appeal was not granted. 3 Without leave to appeal the appeal filed under Rule 220.2 RoP was inadmissible from the outset and, as such, could not be withdrawn. Appellants did not need to be heard again as they had already been heard by the Registry on whether leave to appeal has been granted by the Court of First Instance, Rule 229.5 sentence 2 RoP. ORDER The appeal is rejected as inadmissible. Issued on 14 March 2024 SIGNATURES President of the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court KLAUS STEFAN MARTIN Grabinski Digitally signed by KLAUS STEFAN MARTIN Grabinski Date: 2024.03.14 14:43:50 +01'00'
Cancel
Update Case