Recently, the UPC District Court in The Hague ruled in favor of Abbott Diabetes Care (hereinafter referred to as Abbott) in its infringement case against MicroTech (MicroTech Medical Devices (Hangzhou) Co., Ltd., hereinafter referred to as MicroTech Medical), Lotus NL, Mediq, and other companies, granting a preliminary injunction against the defendants. The court further determined that the patent holder's 2.5-month period between completing test purchases and filing the application satisfied the urgency requirement for interim measures.
Abbott is a leading global manufacturer of CGM technology, holding European Patent EP3960072 (EP072) covering an integrated glucose sensor and sensor electronics assembly. MicroPort Medical is a Chinese CGM product manufacturer whose products are sold in Germany, Italy, and Spain via online platforms like Amazon. Lotus NL, its EU-authorized representative, is domiciled in the Netherlands. Abbott purchased test samples between June 16-18, 2025, completed infringement testing on July 22, and filed the provisional measures application with the UPC's The Hague Division on September 2.
The UPC The Hague Division issued an injunction prohibiting Chinese manufacturer Meditec, its EU Authorized Representative Lotus NL, and distributors Mediq NL and Medic DE from offering, selling, or importing the allegedly infringing Vista System and DiaExpert System continuous glucose monitoring products within the territories of UPC member states and Spain.
The ruling also affirmed international jurisdiction over all defendants. The court noted that for Lotus NL, Mediq NL, and Medic DE—whose domiciles are within UPC member states—any UPC chamber may exercise jurisdiction as the court of domicile under Article 4 of the Brussels Regulation (Revised). For MicroTech, domiciled in China, the Court determined jurisdiction under Article 8(1) of the Regulation, using Lotus NL (domiciled in the Netherlands) as the “anchor defendant.” It found a close connection between all defendants, as each was accused of using the same system to infringe the same patent in different national territories, making jurisdiction reasonable. This jurisdiction also covered allegations of infringement by the defendants within Spain.
Regarding the urgency required for provisional measures, the court rejected the defendants' argument that Abbott had applied for a delay. The court found that Abbott's timeline—from receiving test samples (June 16-18) to completing the analysis of the infringing technology (July 22) and finally filing the application (September 2)—took approximately 2.5 months. This schedule was deemed reasonable and consistent with the precedent established by the UPC in cases such as Abbott v. Sibio. The court further noted that even if Abbott had prior exposure to earlier versions of the allegedly infringing product, this would not affect the above determination, as technical implementations between new and old versions may differ.
Regarding patent validity, the defendant's defenses alleging invalidity due to added subject matter, insufficient disclosure, and lack of inventive step failed to meet the UPC's “more likely than not” standard of proof. Addressing the insufficiency of disclosure, the court cited guidance from the Court of Appeal in Amgen v. Sanofi, stating that disclosure is sufficient if the specification enables a person skilled in the art to understand and reproduce the fundamental principles of the invention and obtain suitable embodiments falling within the scope of the claims. It is not necessary to provide specific operational guidance for all conceivable embodiments covered by functional limitations in the claims. Regarding inventive step, the court applied the UPC's overall assessment approach and found the patent claims inventive, as prior art did not provide technical guidance for applying integrated sensors and electronic components to CGM systems.
Since the defendant did not contest that the accused products fell within the scope of the patent claims, the court determined that infringement was prima facie established. Considering the difficulty in quantifying sales losses and the risk of price erosion, the court granted an immediately enforceable provisional injunction. The injunction's scope extended beyond UPC member states to include Spain, as the court reasoned that patent validity assessments in Spain would likely align with those in UPC member states. Lotus NL, the EU-authorized representative responsible for the alleged infringement, was also bound by the injunction. Additionally, the court ordered the defendant to disclose relevant distribution channel information and surrender infringing inventory located within UPC member states and Spain.
