Abbott Laboratories Ltd v Dexcom Incorporated [2021] EWHC 2246 (Pat) (06 August 2021)

Abbott Laboratories Ltd v Dexcom Incorporated [2021] EWHC 2246 (Pat) (06 August 2021)

The application for expedition is refused because Abbott's primary reasons—protecting its German market and distribution hub from the German injunction gap—do not constitute a sufficiently good reason for expedition under established legal principles. The risk to UK commercial certainty is not compelling, and the unconditional undertaking by Dexcom to protect UK distribution further weakens Abbott's case. Expedition would also create procedural asymmetry, disadvantaging Dexcom.

Citation
[2021] EWHC 2246 (Pat)
Parties
Claimant: Abbott Laboratories Limited; Defendant: Dexcom Incorporated
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
06 August 2021
Procedural Posture
Patent Revocation and Expedition Application / Application for Expedited Trial—interlocutory Judgment
Outcome
Application for expedited trial dismissed
Legal Topics
Expedition of Trial, Patent Validity, Injunction Gap, Cross Jurisdictional Litigation, Distribution Disruption
Intellectual Property Patent Law Civil Procedure Expedition of Trial Patent Validity Injunction Gap Cross Jurisdictional Litigation Distribution Disruption

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 2 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Abbott Laboratories Limited

Claimant

Dexcom Incorporated

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Patent Revocation and Expedition Application / Application for Expedited Trial—interlocutory Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether there is sufficient reason to expedite the UK patent revocation trial
  2. 2 Whether the risk of an injunction gap in Germany justifies expedition
  3. 3 Whether commercial certainty for product launch in the UK justifies expedition

Ratio Decidendi

The application for expedition is refused because Abbott's primary reasons—protecting its German market and distribution hub from the German injunction gap—do not constitute a sufficiently good reason for expedition under established legal principles. The risk to UK commercial certainty is not compelling, and the unconditional undertaking by Dexcom to protect UK distribution further weakens Abbott's case. Expedition would also create procedural asymmetry, disadvantaging Dexcom.

Court Disposition

Application for expedited trial dismissed

Orders

  • Parties to seek to agree an Order giving effect to this judgment