UPC_CFI_499/2023 – Dexcom v Abbott
- Court
- Local Division Düsseldorf
- Date
- Outcome
- Granted
- Sector
- Pharma/Bio
- Decision Type
- PROCEDURAL
Expert Commentary
Extension of time Decision The Judge-Rapporteur (“JR”) grants the claimant an extension of the time limit for the Rejoinder to the counterclaim for revocation and for the Reply to the conditional application to amend the patent. The period of extension is the same as the Court had previously given the defendant with the consent of the claimant, for “grounds of fairness and equity”. Comment: 1. An understandable decision because the claimant consented to the extension of time and now the defendant (apparently) does not want to return the favor! 2. I note that the UPC in normal cases promises a decision within 12 to 14 months (see preamble 7 and R. 118.6 RoP). In principle it is not up to the parties to decide about extensions and only good reasons justify extensions of time. Engaging in proceedings at the UPC should mean that the time limits of the Rules of Procedure should in principle be respected.
Full Decision Text
1 Düsseldorf Local Division UPC_CFI_499/2023 Procedural Order of the Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court issued on 20 November 2024 concerning EP 4 026 488 CLAIMANT: DexCom, Inc., 6340 Sequence Drive, San Diego, California 92121, USA, represented by its CEO Kevin Sayer, represented by: Dr. Markus Grosch, Dr. Johannes Bukow, Dr. Jan Axtmann, Paul Lehmann, Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan LLP, Moll- straße 42, 68165 Mannheim, Germany, electronic address for service: marcusgrosch@quinnemanuel.com DEFENDANTS: 1. Abbott Laboratories, 100 Abbott Park Road, Abbott Park, Illinois 60064-6400, USA, repre- sented by its board of directors which is represented by the CEO Robert Ford, 2. Abbott Diabetes Care Inc., 1360 South Loop Road, Ala-meda, California 94502, USA, repre- sented by its president Jared Watkin, 3. Abbott GmbH, Max-Planck-Ring 2, 65205 Wiesbaden, Germany, represented by its manag- ing director Konstantinos Varlas, 4. Abbott Diagnostics GmbH, Max-Planck-Ring 2, 65205 Wiesbaden, Germany, represented by its managing directors Philip Boudreau and Konstantinos Varlas, 5. Abbott Laboratories GmbH, Freundallee 9A, 30173 Han-over, Germany, represented by its managing directors Gregor Benning, Bradley Slater and Frank Weitekämper, 6. Abbott Logistics B.V., Meeuwenlaan 4, 8011BZ Zwolle, The Netherlands, represented by its directors Hendrikus Lueb and Philip Boudreau, 7. Abbott France (S.A.S.), 40/48 rue d’Arcueil, 94593 Rungis, France, represented by its presi- dent Philippe Emery, 8. Abbott s.r.l., Viale Giorgio Ribotta 9, 00144 Rome, Italy, represented by the chairman of its boards of directors Massi-miliano Bindi, 2 9. Abbott Gesellschaft m.b.H, Perfektastraße 84A, 1230 Vienna, Austria, represented by its di- rectors Martin Hochstöger, Gerhard Wiesinger and Bradley Slater, 10. Abbott B.V., Wegalaan 9, 2132JD Hoofddorp, The Netherlands, represented by its directors Hendrikus Lueb and Bradley Slater, 11. Abbott (S.A./N.V.), Avenue Einstein 14, 1300 Wavre, Belgium, represented by its directors Hendrikus Lueb, Hasna Nadir and Bradley Slater 12. Abbott Scandinavia Aktiebolag, Hemvärnsgatan 9, 171 54 Solna, Sweden, represented by its board of directors which is represented by the chairman of the board Karl Almroth 13. Abbott Oy, Karvaamokuja 2 A, 00380 Helsinki, Finland, represented by its chairman of the board and chief executive officer Karl Almroth all Defendants represented by: Dr. Dietrich Kamlah, Dr. Christian Lederer, Dr. Gisbert Hoha- gen, Taylor Wessing Partnerschaftsgesellschaft mbB, Isartor- platz 8, 80331 München, Germany electronic address for service: d.kamlah@taylorwessing.com PATENT AT ISSUE: European patent n° EP 4 026 488 PANEL/DIVISION: Panel of the Local Division in Düsseldorf DECIDING JUDGES: This order was issued by Presiding Judge Thomas acting as judge-rapporteur. LANGUAGE OF THE PROCEEDINGS: English SUBJECT OF THE PROCEEDINGS: R. 9.3 (a) RoP – Extension of time periods GROUNDS FOR THE ORDER: The Court notes that the Defendants have not consented to the extension of the time limits. How- ever, the requested extension is justified on the grounds of fairness and equity (see the 5th recital in the Preamble to the Rules of Procedure), since the previous time limit was, with the consent of the Claimant, extended to a similar extent in favour of the Defendants. If the relevant workflows are (still) blocked at the time the pleadings need to be uploaded to the CMS, there is no objection to using the R. 9 RoP workflow. ORDER: At the request of the Claimant, the time limit for filing the Rejoinder to the Counterclaim for 3 revocation according to R. 29(e) RoP (CC_33181/2024) and for filing the Reply to the conditional Application to amend according to R. 32.3 clause 1 RoP (Appl. No. 45165/2024) are extended until 11 December 2024. DETAILS OF THE ORDER: App_60996/2024 related to the main proceeding ACT_596853/2023 and CC_33181/2024 UPC-Number: UPC_CFI_499/2023 Subject of the Proceedings: Patent infringement action and Counterclaim for revocation Issued in Düsseldorf on 20 November 2024 Presiding Judge Thomas
Key Holdings
- The Judge-Rapporteur granted an extension of time for the claimant's rejoinder and reply to a conditional application to amend the patent.
- The extension was granted on 'grounds of fairness and equity,' mirroring a previous extension given to the defendant with the claimant's consent.
- The commentator noted that UPC aims for timely decisions (12-14 months) and extensions should only be granted for good reasons, not merely by party agreement.
Tags
- Counterclaim
- Extension of Time
- Fair Trial
- Procedural Issues
- Rules of Procedure