On March 30, 2026, the Third Chamber of the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court (UPC) issued a ruling: it dismissed all appeals filed by Sinocare and Menarini and fully upheld the preliminary injunction issued by the UPC’s The Hague Regional Division in mid-October 2024, prohibiting the sale of the GlucoMen iCan CGM product within the UPC’s jurisdiction.

Sinocare was established in August 2002 and specializes in the research, development, and production of medical devices such as blood glucose meters and uric acid analyzers, with products spanning both home-use and professional medical series. Menarini is an Italian company whose primary business areas include the research, development, production, and sale of medical diagnostic products. In November 2024, Sanuo Bio and Menarini signed a “Distribution Agreement,” under which the two parties agreed to exclusively distribute customized models of Sanuo Bio’s first- and second-generation continuous glucose monitoring systems (iCan CGM System) in over 20 European countries and regions under a co-branded arrangement.

This preliminary injunction stems from a patent infringement lawsuit filed by the medical technology company Abbott. Abbott alleges that Sanuo and Menarini’s GlucoMen iCan continuous glucose monitoring products infringe its EP 4344633 patent (hereinafter “EP 633”) and EP 3988471 patent (hereinafter “EP 471”). In mid-October 2024, the District Court of The Hague issued a preliminary injunction regarding the EP 633 patent but dismissed Abbott’s application based on the other patent, EP 471. Abbott subsequently filed an appeal regarding the EP 471 patent; that appeal was heard in February 2026, and a ruling has not yet been issued.

Sanuo and Menarini, meanwhile, filed an appeal against the EP 633 patent, raising the following three defenses: first, that the UPC lacks jurisdiction over Sanuo’s Chinese parent company; second, that the EP 633 patent is likely invalid and the products do not constitute infringement; and third, that the wording of the first-instance injunction was overly broad and improperly covered the subsequent model, the iCan i3.

The appellate court rejected each of these arguments. The judges held that since the two defendants had not raised jurisdictional objections during the first-instance proceedings, they had forfeited the right to appeal on this ground. The appellants’ manufacture and sale of the allegedly infringing products intended for the markets of UPC member states constituted a likelihood of harm, and they could not be exempted from liability merely because the manufacturing or sales activities occurred outside the territory. Furthermore, the appellants were required to prove that procedural or substantive errors in the first-instance proceedings had actually led to an erroneous judgment; otherwise, the original judgment would be upheld.

Regarding the scope of the injunction, Abbott clarified during the hearing that even though the wording of the applied-for and issued preliminary injunction was general, the Sanuo iCan i3 model was not subject to the injunction. However, the panel did not narrow the scope of the first-instance judgment accordingly. The question of whether the i3 model should be included in the injunction will be determined separately in parallel proceedings.

Following the issuance of the preliminary injunction, Abbott filed a main infringement action in November 2024 based on EP 633. Sanuo and Menarini are expected to focus their defense on challenging the validity of the patent and to file an opposition with the European Patent Office; the opposition hearing is expected to take place in the summer of 2026.