UPC_CFI_396/2023 – Dexcom v Abbott

Court
Local Division Munich
Date
Outcome
Withdrawn
Sector
Pharma/Bio
Decision Type
PROCEDURAL

Expert Commentary

Withdrawal Background Dexcom filed infringement action and Abbott counterclaimed for revocation. Dexcom filed an application to amend the patent. The oral hearing was held on 10 December 2024 and the date for the decision was set for 17 January 2025. Present case On 27 December 2024, both parties filed an application to withdraw their claims indicating, that each party would bear its own costs. On January 2025, the Court indicated that it was mandatory to give a costs decision and asked to confirm that no costs are reimbursed between the parties. This was confirmed by the parties. Decision The requests are granted and the case is closed. “The parties shall bear their extra judicial costs. There will be no reimbursement of costs between the parties.” Comment The Court makes it all rather complicated about costs and can take an example of the decision of the same day of the Local Division in Düsseldorf.

Full Decision Text

Nordic-Baltic - regional division Decision of the Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court delivered on 20/01/2025 CLAIMANT Abbott Diabetes Care Inc.- 1360 South Loop Road - 94502 -Alameda - US Represented by Wim Maas DEFENDANTS 1) Dexcom Inc. - 6340 Sequence Drive - 92121-4356 - San Diego - US 2) Dexcom International Limited- Lampousas Street - 1095 - Nicosia- CY Represented by Tjibbe Douma PATENT AT ISSUE Patent no. Proprietor/s EP3977921 Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. COMPOSITION OF PANEL – FULL PANEL Presiding judge Judge-rapporteur Legally qualified judge Stefan Johansson Kai Härmand Pierluigi Perrotti Technically qualified judge Renaud Fulconis LANGUAGE OF PROCEEDINGS: English SUBJECT-MATTER OF THE PROCEEDINGS Infringement action and counterclaim for revocation SUMMARY OF FACTS The Claimant has requested the Court to permit the withdrawal of the infringement action no ACT_588346/2023 and to render a decision declaring the proceedings closed. A cost decision is not requested. The Defendants consent to the withdrawal of the infringement action. Dexcom has requested the Court to permit the withdrawal of the counterclaim for revocation; and to render a decision declaring the proceedings closed the withdrawal of the revocation action no CC_14848/2024. A cost decision is not requested. The Claimant consent to the withdrawal of the counterclaim for revocation. 1 GROUNDS FOR THE DECISION According to Rule 265 of the Rules of Procedure (RoP), a Claimant may apply to withdraw its ac on as long as there is no final decision. The Court shall decide on such an applica on to withdraw the ac on a er hearing the other party. The applica on to withdraw shall not be permi ed if the other party has a legi mate interest in the ac on being decided by the Court. The Court declares the proceedings closed. The Claimant has withdrawn the infringement ac on, and the Defendants have withdrawn the counterclaim for revoca on. Both par es have been no f ied of the requests, they have confirmed the withdrawal of the ac on. The par es have agreed that the Court does not issue a decision as to their costs in these proceedings, the Court will refrain from issuing such decision. DECISION The Court declares these proceedings closed. The decision on the closure of the proceedings has to be entered on the register. INFORMATION ABOUT APPEAL This decision may be the subject of an appeal within two months of service of the Court’s decision. DECISION DETAILS Order no. ORD_68783/2024 in ACTION NUMBER: ACT_588346/2023; CC_14848/2024 UPC number: 430_2023 Action type: Infringement Action; Revocation Action Related proceeding no. Application No.: Application Type: 68369/2024; 68471/2024; 68693/2024 Application for leave to withdraw an action (RoP265) Stefan Johansson Kai Härmand Pierluigi Perrotti Renaud Fulconis 2

Key Holdings

  • Both parties withdrew their infringement and revocation claims, agreeing to bear their own costs.
  • The Court granted the withdrawal and closed the case, explicitly stating that parties bear their extra-judicial costs and no reimbursement occurs between them.
  • The Court insisted on issuing a cost decision, despite the parties' agreement, citing a mandatory requirement.
  • The commentator suggests the Munich Local Division's approach to costs was overly complicated compared to Düsseldorf's.

Tags

  • Costs
  • Infringement
  • Revocation
  • Withdrawal

Related Cases

View original decision