2024-07-04 - LD Paris - DexCom v. Abbott - UPC_CFI_230/2023
- Aktenzeichen:
- UPC_CFI_230/2023
- Datum:
- Spruchkörper:
- Court of First Instance - Paris (FR) Local Division
- Art:
- Order
- Parteien:
- DexCom vs Abbott
Kernaussage: The scope of the dispute brought before the Court is incontestably governed by the principle that the parties define the subject-matter of the dispute, a general principle of law which is reiterated in Art.
2024-07-04 - LD Paris - DexCom
v.
Abbott - UPC_CFI_230/2023
The scope of the dispute brought before the Court is incontestably governed by the principle that the parties define the subject-matter of the dispute, a general principle of law which is reiterated in Art. 76(1) of the UPC Agreement and which, moreover, allows the claimant in the main action to exclude certain acts of infringement in order to avoid the inconvenience of parallel jurisdictions between the UPC and national courts during the transitional period provided for in Art. 83 of the Agreement ("carve out"). However, this principle cannot restrict a defendant in its challenge to the validity of the European patent which is being asserted against it since no legal text that is binding upon UPC law expressly states such a restriction.
It is not necessary to apply Art. 71c for the UPC to be governed by the Brussels Ibis. Art. 29 to 30 of the Brussels Ibis are directly applicable to the UPC. Moreover, Art. 31 of the UPC Agreement governing its international jurisdiction clearly states: "The international jurisdiction of the Court shall be established in accordance with Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012".
Revocation of patent and dismissal of infringement action, extensive decision
Stichwörter
parallel jurisdiction and related actions, principles for claim interpretation, inventiveness (no), novelty (yes), auxiliary request, Infringement action with counterclaim for revocation, jurisdiction on revocation request by counterclaim, added subject-matter (no), invention related to analyte monitoring system
Nichtigkeitsgründe
Art. 138 EPCNovelty
Patent invalid (this ground)Art. 54 EPC · Art. 138(1)(a) EPC
“Claim 1 found novel over each of D1 (Berman), D2 (Cole) and D3 (Bernstein); D1 did not expressly disclose NFC as the protocol for the second portion [20]; D2 distinguished notification data from measurement data [21.6]; D3 did not configure both protocols for two portions of measurement data [22.4].”
Inventive Step
Patent survived (this ground)Art. 56 EPC · Art. 138(1)(a) EPC
“Court found claim 1 (and Auxiliary Request 1) lacking inventive step over D1 (Berman) combined with common general knowledge. Selection of NFC as the second protocol obvious where D1 already used NFC for the request command [23.5–23.7].”
Added Matter
Patent survived (this ground)Art. 123(2) EPC · Art. 138(1)(c) EPC
“Subject-matter of claim 1 as granted does not extend beyond the application as filed (basis in original claim 22) [11.3–11.6]. Auxiliary Request 2 conversely held to add matter — generalisation of pairing-via-second-protocol concept beyond Figure 8 embodiments [26.1–26.4].”