Abbott Diabetes Care Inc & Ors v Dexcom Inc & Ors

Abbott Diabetes Care Inc & Ors v Dexcom Inc & Ors

The STS Guide does not anticipate EP 627 because its countdown routine is not a 'predetermined routine' as properly construed, and its notifications do not relate to the same predefined alarm condition. Gejdos anticipates EP 223 in respect of safety critical application and installation/functional checks, but does not disclose selective enablement as required by the claim.

Parties
Claimants/appellants: Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. and others; Defendants/respondents: Dexcom Inc. and others; Intervener: The Comptroller-General of Patents
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
01 December 2026
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Court of Appeal Judgment
Outcome
Appeal allowed in part, dismissed in part.
Legal Topics
Patent Validity, Novelty, Construction of Patent Claims, Continuous Glucose Monitoring Technology
Intellectual Property Patent Law Patent Validity Novelty Construction of Patent Claims Continuous Glucose Monitoring Technology

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 12 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. and others

Claimants/appellants

Dexcom Inc. and others

Defendants/respondents

The Comptroller-General of Patents

Intervener

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Court of Appeal Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether EP 627 and EP 223 patents are invalid for lack of novelty
  2. 2 Proper construction of 'predetermined routine' and 'predefined alarm condition' in EP 627
  3. 3 Whether prior art (STS Guide and Gejdos) anticipates the claimed inventions

Ratio Decidendi

The STS Guide does not anticipate EP 627 because its countdown routine is not a 'predetermined routine' as properly construed, and its notifications do not relate to the same predefined alarm condition. Gejdos anticipates EP 223 in respect of safety critical application and installation/functional checks, but does not disclose selective enablement as required by the claim.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed in part, dismissed in part.

Orders

  • Appeal allowed in respect of EP 627 (grounds 1(a) and 1(b))
  • Appeal allowed in respect of EP 223 (ground 3)