The UPC Court of Appeal tightens rules on jurisdiction objections

The UPC Court of Appeal’s 30 March 2026 order in Abbott v Sinocare / Menarini is an important decision for patent practitioners, not only for its treatment of CGM sensor technology, but for the procedural discipline it brings to UPC preliminary injunction appeals.

The case arose from Abbott’s unitary patent EP 4 344 633, directed to a modular glucose monitoring system comprising a pre-assembled sensor assembly and a separate on-body device. While the technical issues on validity and infringement were extensive, the lasting significance of the order lies in three procedural points.

First, jurisdiction objections must be raised in first instance or they will generally be lost on appeal. Second, a non-EU manufacturer may fall within UPC jurisdiction where it manufactures and prepares accused products specifically for the UPCA market. Third, complaints about procedural defects on appeal require a clear showing that the alleged defect affected the outcome.

For practitioners, the order is therefore as much about appeal preservation and jurisdiction strategy as it is about medtech claim construction.

Procedural background and technical context

Abbott sought provisional measures against Sinocare and Menarini based on claims 1 and 15 of EP 4 344 633. The patent concerns a sensor assembly comprising a sensor, sharp, support and seal with electrical contacts, designed as a separate pre-assembled unit for insertion into an on-body electronics device.

The Hague Local Division granted a UPC-wide PI in October 2025. The defendants appealed on jurisdiction, validity, infringement, urgency and proportionality. The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal in full.

Jurisdiction challenges must be preserved at first instance

A key procedural point arose from Menarini’s attempt to challenge jurisdiction on appeal.

Because Menarini had not contested the jurisdiction and competence of the Hague Local Division in first instance, the Court held that it had in principle foregone that objection, expressly relying on Article 26(1) Brussels I Recast and Rule 19.7 RoP.

The lesson is straightforward: jurisdiction and competence objections must be raised expressly and defendant-by-defendant in the first procedural round. The Court makes clear that appeal is not an opportunity to revive unpleaded competence points.

The UPC’s jurisdictional reach over upstream foreign manufacturers

The Court’s treatment of Sinocare is equally significant.

Sinocare argued that it was merely a Chinese manufacturer. The Court instead focused on its practical role in preparing the product for the European market, including manufacturing, CE-related preparation, co-branding, packaging, EU-facing manuals and launch materials.

On that basis, the Court held that manufacturing, preparing and selling allegedly infringing products intended for the Contracting Member States creates a sufficient likelihood of damage in UPC territory, even where the acts themselves occur outside Europe.

For patentees, this confirms the usefulness of Article 71b(2) in conjunction with Article 7(2) Brussels I Recast against upstream non-EU actors. For defence teams, it shows that a “mere manufacturer” position will be difficult to maintain where the evidence shows EU market targeting.

Procedural error on appeal requires prejudice

The third major takeaway concerns appeal methodology.

The defendants raised several due process complaints, including objections to the procedural timetable in first instance. The Court held that this is insufficient unless the appellant can demonstrate that the alleged procedural or substantive error resulted in an incorrect decision.

This is likely to become a key practical rule for UPC appeals. It is no longer enough to argue that the schedule was too compressed or that evidence could have been developed further. The appellant must explain what was missed and why it would likely have changed the validity, infringement or proportionality assessment.

For PI appeals in particular, the Court is clearly requiring a direct error-to-prejudice link.

Claim construction: continued emphasis on the pre-assembled unit concept

On the technical side, the Court placed continued emphasis on the claim term “sensor assembly” as requiring a distinct pre-assembled unit, rather than a temporary grouping of parts during use.

This was decisive over the Dexcom prior art, where the defendants attempted to reconstruct the claim from separate structural elements only temporarily combined in use.

The reasoning is a useful reminder of the litigation value of clear modular claim architecture. Terms such as assembly, kit, and configured to receive carried real weight because the specification consistently described the invention as separate functional units.

Why this matters for patent practitioners

For patent practitioners, the order offers clear lessons.

Jurisdiction objections must be preserved from the outset. Appeal grounds based on procedural defects need a demonstrated effect on the result. In cross-border supply chains, foreign manufacturers should be assessed on their real role in EU market preparation, not merely formal sales structures.

From a drafting and prosecution perspective, the decision also reinforces the value of consistent structural language in modular inventions, particularly in medtech and mechanical cases.

Most importantly, the order shows the Court of Appeal continuing to build a disciplined and technically rigorous PI jurisprudence, one that rewards careful procedural preservation and resists hindsight-driven attacks on validity.