Abbott Laboratories v. DexCom: Federal Circuit Appeal Voluntarily Dismissed in 7 Days
Abbott Laboratories filed a Federal Circuit appeal against DexCom on December 19, 2024, asserting US10827954B2 covering continuous analyte measurement systems — then voluntarily dismissed the proceeding just 7 days later, with each party bearing its own costs.
A 7-day Federal Circuit appeal: strategic pivot or quiet settlement?
On December 19, 2024, Abbott Laboratories filed an infringement appeal at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit against DexCom, Inc., identified as Case No. 25-1303. The patent at issue — US10827954B2 — covers continuous analyte measurement systems and methods for implanting them, a core technology domain in continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) devices. Latham & Watkins represented Abbott; Keker, Van Nest & Peters represented DexCom.
The appeal was dismissed on December 26, 2024 — just 7 days after it was filed — pursuant to a joint agreement of the parties under Fed. R. App. P. 42(b). The court ordered that each side bear its own costs. Because the dismissal was voluntary and agreed by both parties, no merits ruling was issued, and the public record does not specify whether the dismissal was with or without prejudice.
A 7-day lifespan at the Federal Circuit is highly unusual and suggests the parties had reached or were finalising a private resolution — such as a licensing agreement or settlement — concurrent with or immediately following the filing. The symmetric cost order, with no fee-shifting, is consistent with a negotiated exit rather than a unilateral withdrawal. The public record does not confirm any settlement terms, and the underlying validity and enforceability of US10827954B2 remain formally unresolved by the appellate court.
Filing to Voluntary dismissal in 7 days
7 days from filing to dismissal — exceptionally short for a Federal Circuit appeal
Voluntarily dismissed: what the agreed exit means for both parties
Fed. R. App. P. 42(b): agreed voluntary dismissal at the Federal Circuit
Rule 42(b) permits a Federal Circuit appeal to be dismissed on terms agreed by the parties. Unlike a merits ruling, a Rule 42(b) dismissal issues no judgment on the underlying patent claims, invalidity arguments, or infringement findings. The court simply closes the proceeding in accordance with the parties’ agreement. This leaves the patent’s legal status technically intact but with no appellate endorsement.
No merits adjudicationWith or without prejudice? The public record is silent
A voluntary dismissal can be with prejudice — permanently barring refiling — or without prejudice, leaving the door open for future action. The court order in Case No. 25-1303 does not specify either. This ambiguity is significant: if dismissed without prejudice, Abbott could potentially refile or assert US10827954B2 in a different forum. If with prejudice, Abbott’s appellate path on this specific dispute is closed. Neither can be confirmed from the public record alone.
Prejudice status unconfirmedAbbott exits without a ruling — strategic flexibility preserved or concession made?
Abbott’s rapid withdrawal within 7 days of filing suggests either a concurrent resolution was reached with DexCom or strategic circumstances changed materially. Abbott does not obtain an appellate ruling vindicating its patent position, but by agreeing to mutual cost-bearing it avoids an adverse ruling. US10827954B2 remains in Abbott’s portfolio without any appellate-level finding of invalidity or non-infringement.
Patent status preservedDexCom avoids appellate review — but underlying risk may persist
DexCom secures closure of this Federal Circuit proceeding without any adverse ruling on infringement of US10827954B2. The symmetric cost order is consistent with a negotiated resolution rather than DexCom forcing a dismissal. However, if the dismissal was without prejudice, DexCom cannot rule out future enforcement action by Abbott on this patent or related CGM technology claims in a different court or on a different record.
No adverse ruling issuedFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Abbott Laboratories, Inc. | Company | Medical device company — holder of US10827954B2 covering continuous analyte measurement systemsSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | DexCom, Inc. | Company | DexCom, Inc. — leading developer of continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) devices and systemsSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Michael A. Morin | Attorney | Counsel for Abbott Laboratories, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Latham & Watkins, LLP | Law Firm | Representing Abbott Laboratories, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Robert A. Van Nest | Attorney | Counsel for DexCom, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Keker, Van Nest & Peters LLP | Law Firm | Representing DexCom, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge N/A | Judge | Court of Appeals for the Federal CircuitSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Official order — verbatim text
The order records a joint agreed dismissal under Fed. R. App. P. 42(b) with each side bearing its own costs. Because dismissal was by mutual consent, the Federal Circuit issued no merits ruling on the infringement claims or the validity of US10827954B2. The symmetric cost order — departing from the default where a prevailing party may seek costs — is consistent with a negotiated bilateral exit rather than a unilateral withdrawal, though the record does not confirm settlement terms.
US10827954B2 — Continuous Analyte Measurement and Implantable Sensor Systems
US10827954B2, filed under application number US15/789942, protects continuous analyte measurement systems — the core technology enabling real-time, subcutaneous glucose sensing in CGM devices. The patent covers both the measurement system architecture and the methods used to implant such sensors. Abbott’s portfolio in this space is foundational to its FreeStyle Libre product line, and this patent represents a strategically significant asset in the competitive CGM market.
Continuous glucose monitoring is one of the most competitive patent battlegrounds in medical device technology, with Abbott and DexCom as the dominant players. US10827954B2 sits at the intersection of sensor hardware, implantation methodology, and analyte detection — making it broadly relevant to any company developing wearable or implantable diagnostic systems. The patent’s unresolved appellate status means it remains an active enforcement risk for competitors and adjacent technology developers in the CGM and broader biosensor sector.
Should you run an FTO analysis against US10827954B2?
Any R&D team developing continuous analyte measurement devices, implantable glucose sensors, or CGM system architectures should treat US10827954B2 as a priority FTO target. The patent has been actively asserted by Abbott against DexCom — one of the largest players in the field — and the absence of any appellate invalidity ruling means its claims remain fully intact. Companies entering the CGM market, developing biosensor implantation tools, or building analyte detection platforms face real infringement exposure.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent allows IP and R&D teams to map claim scope against US10827954B2, identify related continuations and family members in Abbott’s portfolio, and surface prior art relevant to validity challenges. Eureka can also flag prosecution history estoppel points and identify design-around opportunities — giving product teams the intelligence they need before committing to a commercialisation pathway in the continuous analyte monitoring space.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on US10827954B2 to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar Federal Circuit CGM patent appeals: Abbott, DexCom, and biosensor disputes
Explore Federal Circuit cases involving continuous glucose monitoring and implantable analyte sensor patents, including prior Abbott v. DexCom proceedings.
What this case signals for the continuous glucose monitoring IP landscape
A 7-day Federal Circuit appeal between two CGM market leaders raises questions every IP team in the wearable diagnostics sector should be asking.
Ultra-short Federal Circuit appeals often signal concurrent licensing negotiations
When a Federal Circuit appeal closes within days of filing with mutual cost-bearing, it typically signals the parties had reached or were finalising a private arrangement — whether a cross-licence, settlement, or commercial agreement. IP teams monitoring Abbott and DexCom should watch for licensing disclosures or partnership announcements in the CGM space.
US10827954B2 remains live and unresolved — monitor for future enforcement
No appellate court has ruled on the validity or scope of US10827954B2. The patent remains active in Abbott’s portfolio. Any company developing continuous analyte measurement systems or CGM implantation technology should conduct an FTO analysis against this patent before commercialising competing products.
Abbott v DexCom — key questions answered
Abbott Laboratories filed a Federal Circuit appeal against DexCom on December 19, 2024, asserting patent US10827954B2 covering continuous analyte measurement systems. The appeal was voluntarily dismissed by joint agreement under Fed. R. App. P. 42(b) on December 26, 2024 — just 7 days later — with each side bearing its own costs. No merits ruling was issued.
US10827954B2, filed under application US15/789942, protects continuous analyte measurement systems and methods for implanting them — foundational technology for subcutaneous CGM devices. It is part of Abbott’s core FreeStyle Libre patent estate. The patent’s active assertion against DexCom signals its strategic importance in the CGM competitive landscape.
The public record does not specify. The court order states the proceeding is dismissed under Fed. R. App. P. 42(b) but does not indicate whether the dismissal is with or without prejudice. This distinction is legally significant: without prejudice would permit refiling, while with prejudice would permanently bar Abbott from relitigating the same appellate claims.
A 7-day Federal Circuit appeal lifespan is highly unusual and typically suggests the parties reached or were finalising a private resolution — such as a settlement or licensing agreement — concurrent with the filing. The mutually agreed cost order, rather than cost-shifting to one party, is further consistent with a negotiated bilateral exit. The public record does not confirm any settlement terms.
The court ordered each side to bear its own costs, meaning neither party was awarded litigation expenses from the other. This symmetric outcome departs from a scenario where one party forces a dismissal and the other seeks costs. It is consistent with a mutually agreed resolution and suggests neither party held dominant leverage at the time of dismissal, though no settlement terms are publicly confirmed.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.