Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. & Ors v Dexcom Incorporated & Ors

Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. & Ors v Dexcom Incorporated & Ors

The judge's conclusion on obviousness cannot stand because it is inconsistent with his construction of claim 1, specifically integer 1.9 ('coupled to the housing'), and there was no evidence to support obviousness of claim 1 as construed. Routine modification of prior art did not establish obviousness for manual insertion as required by the claim.

Parties
Claimant/appellant: Abbott Diabetes Care Inc.; Claimant/appellant: Abbott Laboratories Vascular Enterprises LP; Claimant/appellant: Abbott Ireland; Claimant/appellant: Abbott Diabetes Care Limited; Claimant/appellant: Abbott Diagnostics GmbH; Claimant/appellant: Abbott Laboratories Limited; Defendant/respondent: Dexcom Incorporated; Defendant/respondent: Dexcom International Limited; Defendant/respondent: Dexcom Operating Limited; Defendant/respondent: Dexcom (UK) Distribution Limited; Intervener: Comptroller General of Patents, Designs and Trade Marks
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
18 December 2025
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Court of Appeal Judgment
Outcome
Appeal allowed; revocation order set aside.
Legal Topics
Patent Validity, Obviousness, Claim Construction, Revocation, Procedural Intervention
Intellectual Property Patent Law Patent Validity Obviousness Claim Construction Revocation Procedural Intervention

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 16 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Abbott Diabetes Care Inc.

Claimant/appellant

Abbott Laboratories Vascular Enterprises LP

Claimant/appellant

Abbott Ireland

Claimant/appellant

Abbott Diabetes Care Limited

Claimant/appellant

Abbott Diagnostics GmbH

Claimant/appellant

Abbott Laboratories Limited

Claimant/appellant

Dexcom Incorporated

Defendant/respondent

Dexcom International Limited

Defendant/respondent

Dexcom Operating Limited

Defendant/respondent

Dexcom (UK) Distribution Limited

Defendant/respondent

Comptroller General of Patents, Designs and Trade Marks

Intervener

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Court of Appeal Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether claim 1 of European Patent (UK) No. 3 730 044 is obvious over Heller
  2. 2 Proper construction of 'coupled to the housing' in claim 1
  3. 3 Whether the judge erred in combining prior art configurations

Ratio Decidendi

The judge's conclusion on obviousness cannot stand because it is inconsistent with his construction of claim 1, specifically integer 1.9 ('coupled to the housing'), and there was no evidence to support obviousness of claim 1 as construed. Routine modification of prior art did not establish obviousness for manual insertion as required by the claim.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; revocation order set aside.

Orders

  • Paragraph 5 of the judge’s order revoked; patent not held invalid as alleged.