This decision notably affirmed that, despite Sinocare’s manufacturing activity being based entirely in China, its involvement in marketing and preparing for sale in Europe brought them into the jurisdiction of the Local Division in the Hague.

The case is also notable for its decisions on broadly worded injunctions and expedience in applying for provisional measures.

Not discussed here, the case also covers the dismissal by the UPC of alleged procedural errors that are immaterial, and the inadmissibility of arguments raised for the first time at appeal.

Jurisdiction

Joint appellants Sinocare and Menarini argued that the Local Division did not have jurisdiction and competence with respect to the Chinese-based manufacturer Sinocare.

However, the Court of Appeal disagreed, due to Sinocare’s involvement in marketing and preparation for sale in Europe, stating: “the role of [Sinocare] was not merely that of a China based manufacturer having a “standard supplier-distributor relationship” with [Menarini] without any involvement in Europe.”

In justifying this view, the court cited Sinocare’s “iCan” branding being present on the packaging and advertising materials, its listing as the manufacturer on both the packaging and the EUDAMED database, and its involvement in obtaining CE certification required for sale in Europe and affixing it to products.

The court held that this resulted in a “likelihood of damage to occur” in UPC member states, and therefore that the Local Division was correct to accept jurisdiction with respect to Sinocare.

This clearly signals to non-European manufacturers that the UPC can extend its jurisdiction to respond to acts including preparation for entering the European market, and even mere indicators of involvement in the infringing acts (for example,  branding, recognition of manufacture).

Of note, Menarini also contested the jurisdiction of the Local Division with respect to its activities, but this objection was deemed inadmissible as it had not been raised in the first instance.

Expedience

The appellants also argued that there was unreasonable delay in Abbott’s application for provisional measures (the application). The appellants suggested that Abbott should have been aware of the GlucoMen iCan product entering the European market from the public announcement on 03 December 2024, whereas the application was only filed on 04 July 2025.

The Court of Appeal dismissed this argument on several grounds. First, the patent encompassing the GlucoMen iCan product had only been granted a month prior to the application, inherently demonstrating Abbott’s urgency.

Further, the court acknowledged the preparatory work done by Abbott prior to grant, which involved analysis of ordered samples to determine whether infringement had occurred. The court agreed with Abbott in this regard that the analysis could not have been performed before the product was made available in Europe.

In this case the UPC’s assessment of expedience was not particularly strict, given that the mere advertisement of a product entering the European market is not enough to start the clock ticking for the assessment of expedience, and that allowing time for analysis of infringing goods constitutes a reasonable delay prior to filing.

This is in contrast to the court’s later decision UPC_CoA_19/2026, in which the requirement for urgency was applied strictly. However, unlike the present case, the applicant had not adequately substantiated why there had been a delay in applying for provisional measures,.

Broad injunctions

The appellants also argued that the preliminary injunction issued by the Local Division covered not only the GlucoMen iCan product, but also the Sinocare iCan i3 product which had been on the European market since October 2023.

At the oral hearing, Abbott clarified that despite the wording of the injunction, the iCan i3 was not the intended target of the injunction, reflecting the absence of the iCan i3 in any of Abbott’s prior submissions.

However, rather than amend the wording of the injunction to narrow its scope, the Court of Appeal merely stated that given Abbott’s statement, the iCan i3 was not encompassed by the injunction despite its broad wording.

In explaining the rationale behind declining to amend the injunction, it cited the benefits of maintaining a broad injunction in preventing the circumvention of the injunction through minor modifications to the infringing product.

This demonstrates that even when the wording of the injunction appears overly broad, the UPC favours an approach that maintains its broad scope, while effectively issuing disclaimers to prevent unintended products from being targeted.

What are the practical implications of UPC-COA-0000899/2025?

This case notably serves to warn operators worldwide that even minor involvement in European infringing activities can fall within the jurisdiction of UPC Local Divisions. It also shows that the UPC’s assessment of unreasonable delay is not strict if adequate reasoning can be shown, and demonstrates the UPC’s preference for broadly worded injunctions, caveated by disclaimers where necessary.

Case details at a glance

Jurisdiction: UPC
Decision level: Court of Appeal
Parties: Sinocare Inc A Menarini Diagnostics srl v Abbott Diabetes Care Inc
Citation: UPC_CoA_899/2025
Date: 30 March 2026
Decision: https://dycip.com/upc-coa-899-2025