Abbott v. Dexcom - Court of Appeal overturns revocation of a patent

In the recent case of Abbott Diabetes Care Inc and others v. Dexcom Inc and others [2025] EWCA Civ. 1633, the Court of Appeal allowed Abbott’s appeal and overturned the revocation of its European (UK) patent for a continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) device. 

The original case centred on a patent owned by Abbott for the CGM device (which covered the sensor, electronics and insertion device), which they claimed had been infringed by Dexcom. However, Dexcom challenged the patent on the basis on its similarities to an earlier ‘Heller’ patent in the US, claiming it would have been ‘obvious’ to a skilled designer based on the earlier patent. The High Court agreed with this argument, and the patent was revoked. 

The Court of Appeal found that the High Court judge had misapplied the standard 'obviousness' test, had conflated different embodiments of the invention, and had copied Dexcom’s homework when reaching the original decision. 

Unusually, the dispute between the commercial parties had already settled before the appeal was heard - however, Abbott wished to reinstate the patent. The Comptroller therefore stepped in to defend the High Court’s judgment. 

How can businesses make the most of copyright in a commercial context?

This case underlines the importance of viewing Intellectual Property (IP) rights within their broader commercial context, rather than as isolated legal assets. Patents can, of course, be used to stop competitors from copying a product, but crucially (as illustrated here), they also play a major role in global commercial settlements, licensing negotiations and cross‑border deals. 

The CGM market is worth billions, and Abbott was willing to bear the substantial cost of restoring its patent via the Court of Appeal, even though the case with Dexcom had settled. The patent itself held significant strategic and commercial value far beyond the immediate litigation. 

Additionally, the judgment highlights the importance of taking a proactive approach when faced with delayed decisions. In this case, the High Court judgment under appeal took more than 14 months to be handed down, which increases the likelihood of internal inconsistencies in a judgement and creates uncertainty for businesses. 

What can businesses do to bolster their Intellectual Property strategy?

This dispute formed part of a wider international litigation involving the UK, Europe and the US. The resources required to engage in litigation of this scale underscores the importance of maintaining a robust and well‑managed IP portfolio. 

Companies should consider undertaking a full audit of their IP to ensure that: 

  • Relevant rights are properly registered and up to date; 

  • Commercial agreements, such as licences and collaborations, are fit for purpose; and 

  • The IP is being fully leveraged - for example, to obtain tax reliefs such as the Patent Box. 

Although this case settled, the settlement was possible only because both parties held relatively strong IP positions. A well‑prepared IP strategy can provide similar leverage, even outside the courtroom.

Looking to prepare and need a helping hand?

Get in touch and let our Intellectual Property specialists take it from here.

Meet your Intellectual Property experts.

Please be advised that this is an update which we think may be of general interest to our wider client base. The insights are not intended to be exhaustive or targeted at specific sectors as such, and whilst we naturally take every care in putting our articles together, they should not be considered a substitute for obtaining proper legal advice on key issues which your business may face.