UPC_ CFI_1613/2025; UPC_ CFI_943/2026 – Abbott v Sinocare

Court
Local Division The Hague
Date
Outcome
Granted
Sector
Pharma/Bio
Decision Type
PROCEDURAL

Expert Commentary

Preliminary Objection Facts 1. Abbott sues 13 defendants for infringement. Among those defendants are 2 Dutch companies,1 Chinese company, 2 Italian companies, 1 Spanish company, 1 UK company, 1 Portuguese company, 1 French company, 1 Austrian company, 1 German company, 1 Swiss company and 1 Belgian company. 2. The defendants raise a Preliminary Objection contesting the jurisdiction with respect to the UK, Spanish and Swiss company and with respect to the other companies contesting the jurisdiction for countries outside the UPC. 3. Both parties suggest a practical approach in view of the fact that the Court has jurisdiction against certain companies and the fact that case law is evolving. The decision should be stayed to the main proceedings. The JR The JR agrees. Comment Practical parties! Bravo!

Full Decision Text

1 The Hague - Local Division UPC CFI 1613/2025 UPC CFI 943/2026 ORDER of the Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court issued on 19 May 2026 concerning R. 20 CLAIMANT Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. Represented by: Christian Dekoninck, 1360 South Loop Road – Eoin Martyn and Gisbert Hohagen (Taylor CA 94502 - Alameda – US’ Wessing) “Abbott” DEFENDANTS 1. Sinocare Inc, 264 Guyuan Road, Changsha. Hunan Province, CN 2. A. Menarinin Diagnostics s.r.l., Via Sette Santi 3, 50131 Firenze, IT 3. CODIFI Srl Consorzio Stabile per la Distribuzione, Via Sette Santi 3, 50131 Firenze, IT 4. Menarini Benelux S.A./N.V., Divisie Nederland, Europalaan 2, 5232BC, 's-Hertogenbosch, NL 5. Menarini Diagnósticos S.A., Avenida del Maresme 120, E-08918, Badalona, Barcelona, Spain, 6. A.Menarini Diagnostics LTD, 405 Wharfedale Road, Wokingham, Berkshire RG41 5RA, UK, 7. Menarini Diagnósticos, LDA, Rua de Malhões, 1 Piso 2B 2770-071, Paço De Arcos, Lisbon, Portugal, 8. Berlin-Chemie AG (previously known as A.Menarini Diagnostics Deutschland), Glienicker Weg 125, 12489, Berlin, Germany, 9. A.Menarini GmbH, Pottendorfer Strasse 25-27/3/1, A-1120, Vienna, Austria, 10. A.Menarini Diagnostics France SAS, 3-5 Rue du Jura, 94150 Rungis, France, 11. Obelis S.A., Generaal Wahislaan 53, 1030, Schaarbeek, Belgium, 12. Obelis Swiss GmbH, Ruessenstrasse 12, 6340, Baar, Switzerland, 13. Carestores BV, Grindweg 82, 3055VD, Rotterdam, The Netherlands. Defendant 1, 11, 12 and 13 represented by Tjibbe Douma Defendant 2-10 represented by Edoardo Barbera, Collectively: “Defendants” 2 PATENT AT ISSUE EP4344633 PANEL Panel of the local division in The Hague DECIDING JUDGE This order is issued by the judge-rapporteur. LANGUAGE OF PROCEEDINGS: English PROCEDURE 1. In an infringement action initiated by Abbott on 20 November 2025, following preliminary measure proceedings, Defendants filed a preliminary objection (“PO”). Abbott responded. REQUEST 2. Defendants request that the Court: - Deny jurisdiction for Menarini UK, Menarini ES and Obelis Swiss. - Limit its jurisdiction to the UPC Contracting Member States for defendants A.Menarini (defendant 2), Menarini (B)NL (defendant, 4) Menarini PT (defendant 7), Menarini DE (defendant 8), Menarini AUT (defendant 9), Menarini FR (defendant 10) and Codifi (defendant 3). - Limit jurisdiction for defendant 1 Sinocare to (i) the UPC Contracting Member States (and can thus not entail any long arm jurisdiction) and (ii) acts relating to SinoCare iCan i3 products. 3. Abbott requests the court to reject the PO. 4. Both parties suggest a practical approach in which a decision on the PO is postponed until later in the proceedings, because the PO cannot lead to complete dismissal of the main proceedings. GROUNDS 5. The PO cannot lead to the complete dismissal of the action on the grounds of jurisdiction, nor can it lead to the LD The Hague being incompetent to hear the entire case, as rightly noted by the parties. Furthermore, case law regarding the interpretation of certain jurisdiction and competence rules in the context of the UPC, as well as some other rules which are relevant thereto (e.g. the interpretation of Art. 63 UPCA regarding the infringing nature of an intermediary’s actions, is evolving rapidly. In these circumstances, the JR defers the decision on jurisdiction and competence to the main proceedings pursuant to R.20.2.RoP. This will enable the parties and the court to consider new developments. ORDER The preliminary objection is to be dealt with in the main proceedings.Margot Elsa Kokke Digitally signed by Margot Elsa Kokke Date: 2026.05.19 18:16:40 +02'00'

Key Holdings

  • Jurisdiction of the UPC can be challenged via Preliminary Objection for companies from non-UPC member states (e.g., UK, Switzerland) and for countries outside the UPC territory.
  • Parties may propose a practical approach to procedural issues, such as staying a decision on a preliminary objection to the main proceedings.
  • The court (JR) may agree to such practical approaches, demonstrating flexibility in managing complex jurisdictional challenges.
  • The case highlights the evolving nature of UPC case law regarding jurisdiction over diverse international defendants.

Tags

  • Preliminary Objection
  • Jurisdiction
  • Procedure
  • Stay of Proceedings

Related Cases

View original decision