The Intricate Case of Abbott v Dexcom [2024] EWHC 36 (Pat)

Case Summary: Abbott v Dexcom [2024] EWHC 36 (Pat)

Background:

The case involves the first UK battle in an extensive patent dispute between Abbott and Dexcom, concerning patents related to continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) devices. Both companies manufacture devices that provide an alternative to traditional finger-prick methods for diabetes sufferers. The dispute, spanning multiple trials and jurisdictions, includes actions in the UK, the Unified Patent Court (UPC), Spain, and Germany.

Judgment Overview:
Mr. Justice Mellor delivered a judgment resulting in a stalemate, finding two patents from each party invalid. The judgment of this trial is the first of five UK trials, with a prior judgment from the third trial already delivered. The second trial’s judgment is pending, and two more trials are scheduled. All actions revolve around patents for medical devices used in CGM.

Key Patents and Findings:

1. Abbott Patent EP (UK) 2 146 627:

• Description: Relates to a method for a CGM device to notify the user of potential issues without interrupting their use of the device interface.
• Finding: Mellor J found that Dexcom’s devices would infringe the patent but deemed it lacking novelty over Dexcom’s first CGM device’s user guide (“STS”).

Abbott Patent EP (UK) 2 476 223:

• Description: Relates to using a separate device to host a safety-critical application for the CGM device, conducting necessary testing, and allowing user access to non-safety-critical functionality.
• Finding: Dexcom devices did not infringe on Mellor J’s preferred claim construction, but infringement was possible under an alternative construction. Lacks novelty over a 2009 patent application (“Gejdos”).

Dexcom Patents EP (UK) 2 914 159 and EP (UK) 3 782 539:

• Description: Relate to a system continually analyzing glucose values, including user-set alerts and a temperature conversion function.
• Finding: The ‘539 patent was found invalid as granted. The ‘159 patent lacked novelty over two US patent applications. Mellor J dismissed Dexcom’s argument of hindsight.

Abbott vs. Dexcom: A Pioneering Patent Dispute in Continuous Glucose Monitoring Technology

The realm of diabetes management has been significantly transformed by continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) devices. These innovations provide a less invasive and more efficient alternative to traditional finger-prick methods, offering real-time glucose level tracking for diabetes sufferers. However, the rapid advancements in this technology have sparked fierce competition and, consequently, intricate legal battles. A notable example is the ongoing patent dispute between Abbott and Dexcom, two leading manufacturers of CGM devices. This article delves into the first UK battle in this extensive patent dispute, examining the broader implications of this legal clash that spans multiple trials and jurisdictions, including the Unified Patent Court (UPC), Spain, and Germany.

Background on CGM Technology

Continuous glucose monitoring devices represent a revolutionary leap in diabetes care. Unlike the conventional method of glucose testing, which involves pricking a finger to obtain a blood sample, CGM devices use sensors placed under the skin to measure glucose levels continuously. This allows for real-time data collection, providing invaluable insights into glucose trends and patterns, thereby enabling better diabetes management and improving the quality of life for sufferers.

The Abbott and Dexcom Rivalry

Abbott and Dexcom are at the forefront of the CGM market, each offering distinct technologies that cater to the growing demand for innovative diabetes management solutions. Abbott’s FreeStyle Libre system and Dexcom’s G6 CGM system are among the most popular devices, known for their accuracy, ease of use, and ability to integrate with other health monitoring systems.

The Patent Dispute: A Chronology

The patent dispute between Abbott and Dexcom is complex, involving multiple patents related to various aspects of CGM technology. The first significant legal battle in the UK marks a pivotal point in this extensive dispute. The crux of the issue lies in the alleged infringement of patents, with both companies claiming that the other has violated intellectual property rights that are critical to their CGM devices.

Free Presentation

Manslaughter

Homicide without the intent that defines murder.

A short, downloadable slide deck explaining this term in depth — free to open this week, no account needed.

Open This Week's Presentation →

All-Access subscribers get the entire growing library, any time — see the full catalog.

The UK Trial

In the UK, the first trial between Abbott and Dexcom is a significant milestone in their broader patent conflict. This case is set to establish critical precedents regarding the interpretation and enforcement of CGM-related patents. Both companies have presented compelling arguments, with Abbott asserting that Dexcom’s devices infringe on several of its patents, while Dexcom counters with its own allegations of patent infringement by Abbott.

Implications of the UK Trial

The outcome of the UK trial will have far-reaching implications, not just for Abbott and Dexcom, but for the entire CGM industry. A ruling in favor of either party could reshape the competitive landscape, potentially leading to changes in market share, product offerings, and future innovations. Moreover, this trial will influence ongoing and future litigation in other jurisdictions, including the Unified Patent Court, Spain, and Germany.

The Unified Patent Court (UPC) and Other Jurisdictions

The establishment of the Unified Patent Court (UPC) aims to streamline patent litigation across Europe, providing a single legal framework for resolving disputes. The Abbott and Dexcom case is among the first major disputes to be addressed under this new system. Parallel actions in Spain and Germany further complicate the legal landscape, as different jurisdictions may have varying interpretations of patent law and infringement.

Broader Implications for the CGM Industry

The extensive patent dispute between Abbott and Dexcom underscores the high stakes involved in the CGM market. As companies continue to innovate and push the boundaries of technology, protecting intellectual property becomes paramount. This legal battle highlights the need for clear and robust patent laws that can keep pace with rapid technological advancements, ensuring fair competition and fostering further innovation.

The first UK trial in the patent dispute between Abbott and Dexcom is a critical juncture in an extensive and complex legal battle that spans multiple jurisdictions. The outcome of this trial will not only impact the two companies involved but also set important precedents for the entire CGM industry. As the world watches this case unfold, it serves as a reminder of the vital role that intellectual property protection plays in driving innovation and progress in healthcare technology.

Daily Quiz

Business Law

10 questions, new every day. See how many you get right — then come back tomorrow for a new category.

Question 1 of 10

What does Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 generally prohibit in employment?

It has nothing to do with employment Only wage discrimination specifically, not hiring or firing decisions Only discrimination by federal government employers Employment discrimination based on protected characteristics such as race, color, religion, sex, and national origin

Title VII is one of the foundational federal employment discrimination statutes, prohibiting covered employers from discriminating in hiring, firing, and other employment terms based on protected characteristics.

Question 2 of 10

What does the Truth in Lending Act (TILA) generally require?

That lenders clearly disclose key credit terms and costs (like the annual percentage rate) to consumers before extending credit That lenders never charge any interest at all That all loans be approved within 24 hours That only banks, never credit unions, may extend consumer credit

TILA is a foundational consumer protection statute requiring clear, standardized disclosure of credit terms and costs — helping consumers meaningfully compare loan offers rather than being surprised by hidden costs later.

Question 3 of 10

What is the key difference between a general partnership and a limited partnership?

In a general partnership, all partners typically share unlimited personal liability; a limited partnership has at least one general partner with unlimited liability and one or more limited partners whose liability is generally capped at their investment There is no meaningful difference between the two General partnerships must have at least ten partners Limited partnerships are illegal in most U.S. states

General partners in either structure typically face personal, unlimited liability for business debts. Limited partners in a limited partnership trade some management control for liability generally capped at what they invested.

Question 4 of 10

What is "breach of warranty" in a UCC sale of goods, and how might a buyer typically respond?

A criminal offense with no available civil remedy A seller's failure to deliver goods that conform to an applicable warranty, generally entitling the buyer to remedies such as damages or, in some cases, rejecting the goods A claim available only to merchants, never ordinary consumers An issue that can never be raised once goods have been delivered

When goods fail to meet an applicable express or implied warranty, the UCC generally gives buyers a range of possible remedies, from damages to rightful rejection or revocation of acceptance of the non-conforming goods, depending on the circumstances.

Question 5 of 10

What is a "sole proprietorship"?

A business structure requiring at least two owners A type of nonprofit corporation A business that can only operate in one physical location The simplest business structure, owned and run by one person, with no legal separation between the owner and the business itself

A sole proprietorship is the default, no-paperwork-required way of doing business as an individual — but because there is no legal separation from the owner, the owner's personal assets are generally exposed to the business's debts and liabilities.

Question 6 of 10

What is the main purpose of a "non-disclosure agreement" (NDA)?

To transfer ownership of intellectual property automatically To legally bind a party to keep specified confidential information secret and not use or disclose it without authorization To prevent a company from ever being sued To set the price of a future business transaction

NDAs are commonly used before sharing sensitive business information — like in early merger talks or with a new employee or contractor — to create a legal obligation to keep that information confidential.

Question 7 of 10

What is "due diligence" in a business acquisition?

A type of insurance policy A tax filing requirement A government approval needed for every merger The investigative process a buyer undertakes to verify a target company's finances, legal standing, and risks before completing a deal

Due diligence is how a buyer avoids costly surprises — digging into a target's contracts, litigation history, finances, and compliance before signing, so problems get priced in (or the deal gets walked away from) rather than discovered after closing.

Question 8 of 10

What is the basic difference between a merger and an acquisition?

A merger typically combines two companies into one (often with one surviving entity); an acquisition typically involves one company purchasing and taking control of another, which may or may not continue to exist separately Acquisitions can only involve publicly traded companies They are simply two interchangeable names for the exact same transaction Mergers are illegal without approval from every individual shareholder

While often used loosely together as "M&A," a merger technically combines entities into one surviving company, while an acquisition is one company taking ownership or control of another, which may continue operating as a subsidiary.

Question 9 of 10

What is the "public policy" exception to at-will employment?

A rule that employees can never be fired for any reason An exception that requires a specific state law naming the exact employee by name An exception, recognized in most states, generally prohibiting an employer from firing an employee for reasons that clearly violate a well-established public policy, such as retaliating for jury duty or whistleblowing A rule that applies only to government employees

Even under at-will employment, most states carve out real exceptions — an employer generally cannot fire someone for reasons that clearly violate an important, well-established public policy, like retaliating against them for serving on a jury or reporting illegal conduct.

Question 10 of 10

Why does the legal distinction between an "employee" and an "independent contractor" matter for a business?

It has no real legal or practical significance at all It affects tax withholding obligations, eligibility for benefits, vicarious liability exposure, and coverage under many employment protection laws It only matters for businesses with more than 500 workers It affects only the worker's job title, nothing substantive

Misclassifying a worker can carry real legal and financial consequences — the distinction affects tax withholding, benefits eligibility, workers' compensation coverage, vicarious liability exposure, and whether many employment protection statutes even apply.

A quick trivia game for general legal knowledge — not legal advice, and not affiliated with any bar exam or licensing body.

Tsvety, LL.M.

Founder & Legal Editor of TheLawToKnow.com

Tsvety, LL.M. holds a Master of Laws (LL.M.) and a Master’s degree in Cultural Studies, bringing over two decades of experience across legal consulting, multilingual legal content evaluation, English-language legal coaching, and AI training-data development. She is fluent in English, French, Spanish, Bulgarian, and Italian, teaches a Generative AI course on Udemy, and is the author of several nonfiction books on power, governance, and institutional theory published under the name TSVETY. Every article on this site is researched and legally reviewed by Tsvety prior to publication.