In a must-read decision (UPC_CoA_382/2024), the Unified Patent Court’s (UPC) Court of Appeal (CoA) issued a significant order concerning Abbott Diabetes Care Inc.'s request for provisional measures against Sibionics. The case focused on alleged patent infringement involving continuous glucose monitoring devices. The court not only clarified important aspects of claim interpretation and infringement but also addressed broader legal concepts such as urgency and the scope of injunctions.
The UPC clarified that a general injunction can be granted even if the plaintiff demonstrates infringement based on a single type of infringing act. Abbott had only proven that Sibionics offered infringing products for sale, but the court allowed a broad injunction prohibiting all forms of infringement, including manufacturing and importing.
The CoA’s order confirmed that injunctions need not be limited to specific infringing products unless explicitly required by law. The court held that Article 62(1) UPCA does not necessitate such a restriction, allowing for broader enforcement to prevent circumvention through minor modifications. This decision strengthens the ability of patentees to enforce their rights across a range of potentially infringing products, providing a strong deterrent against future violations.
The decision also clarified that proving infringement of a single, specific product suffices to justify a general injunction under UPC law. The court rejected Sibionics' argument that infringement must be shown across all potential infringing products. By proving that the GS1 CGM device infringed its patent, Abbott successfully secured an injunction covering all potentially infringing products.
Sibionics argued that Abbott’s request lacked urgency, citing delays between discovering the alleged infringement and filing for provisional measures. However, the court rejected this argument, stating that Abbott’s thorough investigation—including X-ray analysis of the device—was reasonable given the complexity of the technology involved. This sets an important precedent, indicating that patent holders conducting diligent investigations before filing for injunctions will not be penalized for perceived delays, provided they act within a reasonable timeframe.
A key issue addressed by the court was the interpretation of "means-plus-function" claims, particularly features described by their function rather than explicit structural components. The court reaffirmed that such features must be understood to include any element suitable for carrying out the specified function. This approach aligns with established principles at the EPO and national courts in Europe.
The court dismissed Sibionics’ arguments that Abbott’s patent contained unallowable intermediate generalizations due to omitted technical features (such as the use of elastomeric seals). The judges found that the original application disclosed various sealing methods without “inextricably” linking them to specific device configurations. Precisely, the CoA reasons that without any specific connection to any specific configuration, the skilled person does not discern a functional or structural relationship between the use of an elastomeric seal and the other features of these embodiments. As a result, omitting certain features from the final patent claims did not constitute added matter.
The Court of Appeal clarifies that measures provided under Article 67 UPCA – such as information with respect to the origin and distribution channels of infringing products - can be granted not only in main proceedings but also in the context of preliminary injunctions, as long as there is an urgent interest, and the requested relief is proportionate.
