UPC Injunctions: The Hague LD Grants A PI To Abbott And A "Long-Arm" Permanent Injunction To HL Display

The Hague local division (LD) of the UPC granted two injunctions last week – a preliminary injunction (involving a unitary patent) to Abbott Diabetes Care in relation to an infringing glucose monitoring system – and, applying long-arm jurisdiction to several non-UPCA and non-EU states (the UK Switzerland, Liechtenstein, Ireland, Norway and Poland), a permanent injunction to HL Display in relation to a system for securing shelf accessories to a shelf.

Preliminary injunction (PI)

Abbott Diabetes Care v Sinocare and Menarini UPC_CFI_624/2025, The Hague LD, 17 October 2025. In another round in going glucose monitoring patent disputes at the UPC, Abbott Diabetes Care has been granted a new PI by The Hague LD on the basis of a unitary patent EP4344633 for "Analyte sensor assemblies". The infringing product was Sinocare's GlucoMed iCan. The court held that it was more likely than not that the product infringed the patent. The defendants had offered invalidity as a defence but the court held that "the grounds for revocation raised by Defendants are not expected to affect the validity of the patent in main proceedings". In view of the likelihood of infringement and validity, the requested measures would therefore be granted in so far as necessary and proportionate, stated the court.

The court held that Abbott had explained convincingly that an injunction is necessary and urgent at this moment to avoid Defendants from (further) entering the reimbursement market and to avoid further sales via 'cash pay'. On necessity, the court gave a robust account of the impact that not granting a PI would have on the market for Abbott's product:

• "Within UPCA territory, sales of CGM systems are either in the cash pay segment (where the user self-funds the purchase) or in the 'reimbursement' segment (typically where a product is prescribed by a physician, and the cost is borne by the healthcare system). The cash pay segment is less than 5% of the total CGM market in each country. Currently, pending often time-consuming national approvals for the reimbursement market, the GlucoMen iCan is CE marked which means that the Defendants can and effectively sell into the cash pay segment of the market.
• Such sales are at prices which are comparable with or below the price of Abbott's FreeStyle Libre. There is nothing to stop the Defendants from offering discounts to undercut Abbott's prices, and such aggressive pricing is to be expected. This can be prevented further, by a provisional injunction.
• As far as Abbott claims to know, the GlucoMen iCan has not yet been approved for the reimbursement market. An injunction can stop this, preventing expected lost sales and price erosion in the much larger part of the market. The damage caused by such loss of sales and price erosion is difficult to quantify and may run for many years due to long contracts with payers and the irreversibility of price reductions.
• The Defendants' argument that the grant of an injunction will cause them irreparable harm because it will give them an unacceptable disadvantage in the reimbursement market even possibly leading to black-listing in Italy, is dismissed.
• Abbott disputes that an injunction may lead to black-listing, and this cannot be established here. Furthermore, a provisional injunction is deemed proportionate in view of the infringement.
• The Defendants' request to make an injunction subject to security is dismissed as the Defendants did not argue let alone demonstrate that there is a risk that Abbott will not or is unable to pay Defendants' damages in case the injunction is reversed in appeal or in proceedings on the merits".

The distributor Menarini Diagnostics (which was also involved in other glucose monitoring disputes at the UPC in relation to Insulet's patent and EOFlow's infringing products) is also injuncted. Abbott secured PIs against Sibio and Sibio's distributor Umedwings in February 2025 in relation to glusose monitoring systems, after the Court of Appeal reversed The Hague's decision not to grant a PI in relation to infringing glucose monitoring systems.

Permanent injunction

HL Display v Black Sheep Retail products UPC_CFI_386/2024 UPC_CFI_610/2024, The Hague LD, 10 October 2025. The LD held that HL Display's patent EP2432351B1 for a shelf accessory system was valid and infringed by Black Sheep Retail Products (BSRP) by BSRP's shelf accessory system. The court issued an injunction and ordered recall and destruction of infringing products, and dismissed BSRP's counterclaims for revocation and non-infringement. The court held that the injunction was still justified even though there had been a "cease and desist" undertaking.

The court, applying the UPC's long-arm jurisdiction in conjunction with the CJEU's BSH/Electrolux decision, stated:

The Hague LD concluded that it was clear the patent is to be held valid. This meant that the court dismissed the counterclaim for revocation in relation to the UPC contracting member state (CMS) EPs. For the EU member states in which the patent is in force, that are not UPC CMS, as well as the Lugano member states, the Court found there was "no serious, non-negligible chance the patent will be revoked by the competent national court". Equally, for the other states in which the patent is in force, the Court held inter partes that the patent is valid. The injunction was therefore awarded for all the territories where the EP was in force, including (via its long-arm jurisdiction) countries not party the UPC Agreement: Austria, Belgium, Switzerland, Germany, France, United Kingdom, Ireland, Italy, Liechtenstein, the Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Portugal and Sweden.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.