Abbott Diabetes Care Incorporated & Ors v Dexcom Incorporated & Ors

Patent claims must be construed objectively and purposively through the eyes of the skilled person, using the description, drawings and common general knowledge. The court must respect deliberate claim limitations and must not rewrite general language by importing restrictions from particular embodiments.

A claimed minimum force must be given its natural technical meaning in the context of the whole claim. Where the claim requires that force to overcome a retention feature so as to permit movement, it is insufficient merely to place a device in an actuation-ready state. For added matter, a generalisation is permissible where it teaches the skilled person nothing new. An invention remains obvious where the differences from the prior art involve only routine adaptation or a commercial, rather than technical, prejudice.

Abbott owned a patent for inserters used to place medical devices, particularly glucose-monitoring sensors, into the skin. Abbott alleged that Dexcom’s G7 Applicator infringed Claims 1 and 7. Dexcom counterclaimed that the patent was invalid for added matter and advanced insufficiency, anticipation and obviousness arguments.

The central disputes concerned the construction of “biased retention feature”, the meaning of overcoming that feature by a minimum force, the role of the handle, sheath and device support, and whether the claims covered the G7 Applicator. The validity challenges based on prior art and insufficiency were advanced as squeeze arguments and were not strictly necessary once infringement failed.

1. Construction. Patent claims are construed objectively and purposively through the eyes of the skilled person, in the context of the specification and drawings. Deliberate limitations cannot be ignored, and general claim language should not be rewritten by importing details from particular embodiments.
2. Biased retention feature. In the context of the patent, a biased retention feature must secure the sheath within the handle, although it need not be limited to the particular snap-and-detent arrangement illustrated in embodiment 3700. The minimum force must overcome the feature itself so as to allow distal movement of the handle relative to the sheath. It is not enough that the force merely places the applicator in an actuation-ready condition.
3. Handle and force. Integers 1.4 and 1.7 required the handle, by its movement from the proximal to the distal position, to urge the device support and sharp support distally, with the same applied force moving the sheath into the handle and moving the medical device and sharp. The G7 Applicator did not satisfy those requirements because its internal components moved under a spring after the handle and sheath had become stationary.
4. Infringement. The G7 Applicator did not contain the relevant biased retention feature, did not satisfy the handle and force requirements, and did not satisfy the required device-support functions. It therefore did not infringe Claim 1 or Claim 7, whether unamended or conditionally amended.
5. Added matter. Under the comparison required by Bonzel, the relevant question was whether the amended claim taught the skilled person something new. Generalising the disclosed snap-and-detent retention concept beyond the particular embodiments did not add matter because the essential retention and biasing characteristics remained present.
6. Validity findings. If the contrary construction were adopted, the cited prior art would contain the biased retention feature. The differences from Claim 7 would then consist principally of adapting infusion-set inserters for analyte sensors and relocating the retention feature. Those steps involved no invention. The same conclusion applied to CA1, since the integrated architecture was commercially unattractive because of cost but did not involve a technical prejudice.
7. Disposition. Abbott’s infringement claim was dismissed. Dexcom’s counterclaim for invalidity based on added matter was dismissed. The court made no operative finding that the patent claims were invalid on insufficiency, anticipation or obviousness grounds, because those issues were advanced as squeeze arguments.