Abbott Laboratories v. DexCom: CGM Infringement Action Dismissed With Prejudice
Abbott Laboratories and Abbott Diabetes Care Limited brought a four-patent infringement action against DexCom in Delaware, targeting continuous glucose monitoring sensor and insertion technologies. After 668 days of litigation, the parties reached a stipulated dismissal with prejudice — a resolution that forecloses any refiling of the same claims.
A high-stakes CGM patent standoff ends in bilateral finality
Abbott Laboratories, Inc. and its affiliate Abbott Diabetes Care Limited filed suit against DexCom, Inc. on 3 March 2023 in the District of Delaware before Judge Gregory B. Williams. The complaint asserted four patents — US11266335B2, US11298056B2, US10827954B2, and US11202591B2 — covering analyte sensor insertion apparatus, continuous analyte measurement systems, medical device inserters, and early signal attenuation detection methods. These patents sit at the technological core of the wearable CGM market, where Abbott’s FreeStyle Libre and DexCom’s G-series sensors compete directly.
The action closed on 30 December 2024 via a court-approved stipulation in which both parties agreed to dismiss all claims and counterclaims with prejudice. Each party agreed to bear its own attorneys’ fees, expenses, and costs. Dismissal with prejudice is a full adjudication on the merits for res judicata purposes: Abbott cannot reassert these four patents against DexCom on the same accused products in any future proceeding, and DexCom’s counterclaims — likely invalidity and non-infringement defences — are equally extinguished.
A 668-day arc from filing to stipulated dismissal suggests the parties conducted substantial discovery and claim construction work before arriving at a negotiated resolution. The mutual cost-bearing structure is consistent with a confidential settlement — common in CGM disputes where cross-licensing or product design-around agreements carry more commercial value than a damages award. The public record does not reveal licensing terms, any design-around commitments, or revenue-sharing arrangements, leaving the commercial substance of the resolution opaque.
Filing to Dismissed with Prejudice in 668 days
668 days — longer than median D. Del. patent case resolution
Dismissed with prejudice: what the stipulated exit means for both sides
Stipulated dismissal with prejudice forecloses refiling
A dismissal with prejudice entered by stipulation operates as a final judgment on the merits under res judicata doctrine. Unlike a dismissal without prejudice, Abbott cannot refile these specific patent claims against DexCom on the same accused products. The mutual structure — covering both claims and counterclaims — suggests a negotiated bilateral exit rather than a unilateral concession by either party.
Permanent bar on refilingAbbott’s four CGM patents exit litigation, future enforcement narrowed
Abbott retains ownership of all four asserted patents, which remain valid and enforceable against third parties. However, the with-prejudice dismissal means these patents cannot be re-asserted against DexCom on the same accused products. Any commercial resolution — such as a cross-licence or non-assert — would not appear in the public record. Abbott’s FTO position relative to DexCom on covered technology may have been clarified through the settlement process.
Patents survive; DexCom carve-out likelyDexCom extinguishes infringement risk on four key sensor patents
DexCom achieves permanent dismissal of infringement claims covering analyte sensor insertion, CGM measurement systems, and signal attenuation detection — technologies central to its G-series product line. Counterclaims, which likely included invalidity challenges, are also dismissed, meaning DexCom did not secure a public invalidity ruling. The cost-neutral structure suggests neither party paid a significant damages award in the visible record.
Infringement risk eliminated on these patentsCGM market rivalry continues — litigation chapter formally closed
The Abbott–DexCom competitive dynamic in wearable CGM technology remains intense, and this dismissal resolves only one litigation vector. The four patents at issue cover foundational insertion and signal-processing IP; their survival intact suggests Abbott retains leverage against other market entrants. Companies developing CGM sensors or inserter mechanisms should treat these patents as active enforcement risk against non-DexCom products.
Remaining CGM players still at riskFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Abbott Laboratories, Inc. | Company | Global medical device and diagnostics company — holder of US11266335B2 and related CGM patentsSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Co-Plaintiff | Abbott Diabetes Care Limited | Individual | Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | DexCom, Inc. | Company | DexCom, Inc. — leading continuous glucose monitoring device manufacturerSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Alex M. Volger | Attorney | Counsel for Abbott Laboratories, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Amanda J. Hollis | Attorney | Counsel for Abbott Laboratories, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Anthony David Raucci | Attorney | Counsel for Abbott Laboratories, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Benjamin A. Lasky | Attorney | Counsel for Abbott Laboratories, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Ellisen S. Turner | Attorney | Counsel for Abbott Laboratories, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Jack B. Blumenfeld | Attorney | Counsel for Abbott Laboratories, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | James M. Hafertepe | Attorney | Counsel for Abbott Laboratories, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Leland G. Hansen | Attorney | Counsel for Abbott Laboratories, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Manuela Cabal | Attorney | Counsel for Abbott Laboratories, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Michael J. Carrozza | Attorney | Counsel for Abbott Laboratories, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Rodger Dallery Smith , II | Attorney | Counsel for Abbott Laboratories, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Sharon A. Hwang | Attorney | Counsel for Abbott Laboratories, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Morris, Nichols, Arsht & Tunnell LLP | Law Firm | Representing Abbott Laboratories, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Amy E. Philip | Attorney | Counsel for DexCom, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Andrew Russell | Attorney | Counsel for DexCom, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Cary E. Adickman | Attorney | Counsel for DexCom, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Christopher S. Sun | Attorney | Counsel for DexCom, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | David L. Bilsker | Attorney | Counsel for DexCom, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Elizabeth A. Egan | Attorney | Counsel for DexCom, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Emily DiBenedetto | Attorney | Counsel for DexCom, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Eric B. Hanson | Attorney | Counsel for DexCom, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | John W. Shaw | Attorney | Counsel for DexCom, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Karen Elizabeth Keller | Attorney | Counsel for DexCom, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Kevin P.B. Johnson | Attorney | Counsel for DexCom, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Leo L. Lam | Attorney | Counsel for DexCom, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Michael K. Deamer | Attorney | Counsel for DexCom, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Morgan Sharma | Attorney | Counsel for DexCom, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Nathan Hamstra | Attorney | Counsel for DexCom, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Nathan Roger Hoeschen | Attorney | Counsel for DexCom, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | R. Adam Lauridsen | Attorney | Counsel for DexCom, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Robert A. Van Nest | Attorney | Counsel for DexCom, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Sophie A. Hood | Attorney | Counsel for DexCom, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Stephanie J. Goldberg | Attorney | Counsel for DexCom, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Valerie A Lozano | Attorney | Counsel for DexCom, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Zainab O. Ramahi | Attorney | Counsel for DexCom, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Shaw Keller LLP | Law Firm | Representing DexCom, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge Gregory B. Williams | Judge | Delaware District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Official order — verbatim text
The stipulation records an unambiguous bilateral exit: all claims and counterclaims dismissed with prejudice, with each party bearing its own costs. The absence of any damages figure, royalty rate, or injunctive relief in the public record is consistent with a confidential commercial resolution. The with-prejudice standard forecloses future litigation on these specific patents as to DexCom, but the patents themselves are unimpaired for enforcement against third parties. No merits determination was issued, so neither party obtained a public validity or infringement ruling.
US11266335B2 — analyte sensor insertion apparatus for CGM devices
The four asserted patents span the full CGM device stack: US11266335B2 (application US17/019110) covers analyte sensor insertion apparatus; US11298056B2 (US17/411154) addresses continuous analyte measurement systems and implantation; US10827954B2 (US15/789942) covers medical device inserters and insertion processes; and US11202591B2 (US17/221154) covers early signal attenuation detection and processing methods. Together they protect both the physical mechanism of getting a sensor under the skin and the algorithmic layer that interprets sensor output during the early wear period — two of the most commercially critical phases of CGM operation.
These patents collectively cover technology that differentiates premium CGM products on accuracy, comfort, and ease of insertion — the primary competitive axes in the consumer and clinical CGM market. The signal attenuation detection patent (US11202591B2) is particularly strategically significant: early signal attenuation is a known accuracy problem in subcutaneous sensors, and patented detection methods create a moat against competitors who cannot license the solution. Any medtech company developing a CGM or biosensor patch without a licence to this portfolio faces meaningful infringement exposure at both the hardware and software levels.
Should your CGM product be cleared against US11266335B2 and related patents?
Any company developing, manufacturing, or commercialising continuous analyte monitoring sensors, wearable biosensor patches, or subcutaneous drug delivery devices with insertion mechanisms should assess freedom-to-operate against all four patents asserted in this case. The scope extends beyond finished CGM devices to components: inserter assemblies, needle retraction mechanisms, and onboard signal-conditioning firmware may independently trigger claim reads across this portfolio. The with-prejudice dismissal confirms these patents are active and uncontested by DexCom — meaning no public invalidity finding exists to rely on.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent can map the claim landscape of US11266335B2, US11298056B2, US10827954B2, and US11202591B2 against your product architecture in a fraction of the time of a manual review. The agent identifies independent and dependent claim scope, surfaces file-history prosecution disclaimers, and flags prior art references that could support a design-around or IPR petition strategy — giving R&D and IP teams the intelligence needed before product launch or investment decisions in the CGM space.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on US11266335B2 to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar CGM and wearable sensor patent cases in Delaware and beyond
Explore patent infringement disputes involving continuous glucose monitoring, analyte sensor, and medical device insertion technology litigated in the District of Delaware and related federal courts.
What this case signals for the CGM and wearable sensor IP landscape
The Abbott–DexCom dismissal highlights how foundational sensor IP shapes competitive strategy across the rapidly expanding CGM market.
Insertion and signal-detection patents are active litigation tools in CGM
Abbott’s willingness to assert four patents covering inserter mechanics and signal attenuation detection — not just sensor chemistry — signals that structural and software-adjacent CGM IP is being actively enforced. Companies entering wearable analyte monitoring should scope FTO analysis beyond electrochemical sensing claims to include device insertion and signal processing architectures.
Dismissal with prejudice without a public verdict is a common CGM settlement signature
Bilateral stipulated dismissals with mutual cost-bearing are the standard fingerprint of confidential cross-licensing or design-around agreements in the medical device sector. The 668-day duration suggests claim construction was largely completed before settlement, meaning both parties had full visibility of claim scope before agreeing to exit — a negotiating context that typically favours the patent holder.
Abbott v DexCom — key questions answered
The case was dismissed with prejudice on 30 December 2024 via a court-approved stipulation. All claims and counterclaims were extinguished, with each party bearing its own attorneys’ fees and costs. No damages, royalties, or injunctive relief appear in the public record.
Abbott asserted four patents: US11266335B2 (analyte sensor insertion apparatus), US11298056B2 (continuous analyte measurement systems and implantation), US10827954B2 (medical device inserters and processes), and US11202591B2 (early signal attenuation detection and processing methods). All four remain in force following the dismissal.
A dismissal with prejudice operates as a final judgment on the merits under res judicata doctrine. Abbott cannot refile these specific patent claims against DexCom on the same accused products. However, the patents remain fully enforceable against other parties, and Abbott retains the right to assert them against different defendants or on different products.
No. The stipulated dismissal includes no invalidity ruling or finding. DexCom’s counterclaims — which likely included invalidity challenges — were also dismissed with prejudice, but this does not constitute a court finding that the patents are valid. A third party seeking to challenge validity would need to file an IPR or raise invalidity in separate litigation.
A 668-day duration in D. Del. suggests the parties progressed through substantial discovery and likely claim construction before reaching resolution. Cases that settle post-Markman typically reflect more informed commercial negotiations, as both sides understand the probable claim scope. The mutual cost-bearing outcome is consistent with a confidential cross-licence or design-around agreement, though no terms are publicly available.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.