2026-03-30 - CoA - Sinocare et al. v. Abbott - UPC-COA-0000899/2025

ENGLISH: 1. By not contesting the jurisdiction and competence of the Court in First Instance, the Appellant (Defendant in first instance) has in principle foregone this opportunity on appeal and cannot raise the alleged lack of jurisdiction and competence as a ground for overturning the impugned order (Art. 26(1) Brussels I Recast and R. 19.7 RoP). 2. By manufacturing, preparing and selling allegedly infringing products intended for the Contracting Member States of the UPC, there is a likelihood of damage occurring in the UPC territory arising from the possibility of third parties obtaining these products in the Contracting Member States, even if the acts causing the damage are performed by the Defendant outside the Contracting Member States. This provides basis for jurisdiction of the UPC pursuant to Art. 71b(2) in conjunction with Art. 7(2) Brussels I Recast. 3. Appellants must demonstrate that any alleged procedural or substantive errors by the Court of First Instance, such as those in relation to the procedural schedule applied in first instance, have resulted in an incorrect decision by the Court of First Instance. In the absence of such a showing, the alleged errors cannot result in setting aside the impugned order.

CoA (five-judge Panel 3) rejects appeal against The Hague LD's preliminary injunction. Comprehensive decision covering jurisdiction over Chinese manufacturer (Sinocare) and Italian distributor (Menarini), claim construction of CGM sensor assembly features, full validity review (added matter, sufficiency, novelty, inventive step all rejected on balance of probabilities), and infringement confirmed. Urgency established despite pre-grant knowledge — the relevant trigger is patent grant, not knowledge of infringement. Generally worded injunction upheld. Interim cost award of EUR 200,000 (50% of EUR 400,000 ceiling). Important holdings on jurisdiction over non-EU manufacturers under Art. 71b(2)/7(2) Brussels Ia, failure to contest jurisdiction as estoppel on appeal, and standard for PI necessity in the CGM market.