Abbott Diabetes Care Inc & Ors v Dexcom Inc & Ors
[2024] EWHC 1664 (Pat)
Abbott Diabetes Care Incorporated & Ors v Dexcom Incorporated & Ors
18 October 2023
[2023] EWHC 2591 (Ch)
High Court
Two companies fought over a patent for a device that helps people with diabetes check their blood sugar. The judge decided that the accused device didn't copy the patented invention, so the patent holder lost the case.
Key Facts
- •This case concerns UK patent infringement and validity trials relating to continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) systems.
- •Claimants (Abbott) own European Patent (UK) No. 2 549 918, relating to CGM inserter designs.
- •Defendants (Dexcom) are accused of infringement with their "G7 Applicator", and counterclaim for patent invalidity.
- •Abbott proposed conditional amendments (CAs) to the patent.
- •The court considered patent construction, infringement, invalidity due to added matter, anticipation, obviousness, and sufficiency.
Legal Principles
Patent claims are construed objectively through the eyes of the skilled person, using common general knowledge (CGK).
Saab Seaeye Limited v Atlas Elektronik GmbH
The Protocol to Article 69 of the EPC requires a balance between fair protection for the patentee and reasonable certainty for third parties.
European Patent Convention
A patent is insufficient if the specification doesn't disclose the invention clearly enough for a skilled person to perform it.
Patents Act 1977, s72(1)(c)
An invention involves an inventive step if it's not obvious to a person skilled in the art.
Patents Act 1977, s3
Obviousness is assessed using the structured approach in Pozzoli v BDMO SA, considering the skilled person, CGK, inventive concept, differences from prior art, and whether those differences are obvious.
Pozzoli v BDMO SA
Outcomes
Abbott's claim for infringement is dismissed.
The G7 Applicator does not infringe Claim 1 or Claim 7 of the patent as properly construed; conditional amendments raise no different infringement issues.
Dexcom's counterclaim for a declaration of invalidity due to 'added matter' is dismissed.
The amendments to the patent did not introduce new matter; they were a permissible generalization of the disclosed invention.
Dexcom's prior art challenges (obviousness, anticipation, insufficiency) are not determined.
Dexcom agreed not to pursue these challenges if infringement was not found.
Abbott's application to amend the claims conditionally is not considered.
No claims were found invalid.
Similar Cases
Abbott Diabetes Care Inc & Ors v Dexcom Incorporated & Ors
[2024] EWHC 36 (Pat)
Sandoz AG & Ors v Biogen MA Inc
[2024] EWHC 2567 (Pat)
Samsung Bioepis UK Ltd v Janssen Biotech, Inc.
[2024] EWHC 2442 (Pat)
Astellas Pharma Industries Limited v Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Limited & Ors
[2023] EWHC 2571 (Pat)