DexCom v. Abbott Laboratories: Federal Circuit Appeal Voluntarily Dismissed
DexCom, Inc. appealed a patentability challenge brought by Abbott Laboratories over US10993642B2, a patent covering analyte sensor technology central to continuous glucose monitoring. The Federal Circuit proceeding was voluntarily dismissed by agreement of both parties after 560 days, with each side bearing its own costs — leaving the underlying merits unresolved on the appellate record.
A contested CGM patent appeal ends without a Federal Circuit merits ruling
DexCom, Inc. filed Federal Circuit appeal No. 24-1327 on 5 January 2024, challenging a patentability determination related to US10993642B2 — a patent covering analyte sensor technology directly relevant to the continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) market. Abbott Laboratories, a major competitor in the CGM space with its FreeStyle Libre platform, was the opposing party in what was framed as an invalidity or cancellation action at the trial level.
The appeal was terminated on 18 July 2025 when the parties jointly agreed to dismiss the proceeding under Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 42(b). The Federal Circuit ordered dismissal accordingly, with each side bearing its own costs. Critically, no merits ruling was issued: the appellate court did not affirm, reverse, or vacate any lower decision on the patentability of US10993642B2.
A 560-day duration before voluntary dismissal is longer than typical stipulated Federal Circuit dismissals, suggesting the parties may have engaged in substantive negotiations — potentially including licensing discussions or a broader commercial settlement — before agreeing to withdraw. The public record is silent on the precise terms that precipitated the dismissal, and whether the underlying patent challenge proceedings have been formally resolved remains unclear from available filings.
Filing to Voluntary dismissal in 560 days
560 days from filing to closure — longer than many stipulated Federal Circuit dismissals
Appeal dismissed by agreement: what the Fed. R. App. P. 42(b) order means
Fed. R. App. P. 42(b): a consent-based procedural exit
Rule 42(b) allows parties to jointly stipulate to dismissal of a Federal Circuit appeal at any time. The court does not evaluate the merits — it simply orders the proceeding closed on the parties’ agreement. No precedent is set, no claim construction is adopted, and no patentability ruling is issued. The lower-level record, whatever its disposition, is not formally disturbed by the appellate dismissal itself.
No merits adjudicationWith or without prejudice? The public record is silent
A voluntary dismissal under Rule 42(b) does not automatically specify whether the dismissal is with or without prejudice. The order here states only that the proceeding is dismissed and each side bears its own costs — it does not characterise the dismissal further. Practitioners should note that the distinction matters significantly: a with-prejudice dismissal would bar re-litigation of the same patentability challenge, while a without-prejudice dismissal would preserve that right. The filed order does not resolve this question on its face.
Prejudice status unspecifiedAbbott exits without a Federal Circuit ruling in its favour
Abbott Laboratories pursued a patentability challenge against DexCom’s US10993642B2 at the trial level. By jointly agreeing to dismiss the appeal, Abbott foregoes any appellate validation of its invalidity arguments. If Abbott’s underlying challenge was denied or partially denied below, that outcome remains in place unless separately appealed or reconsidered. The cost-sharing order suggests neither party extracted a clear concession from the other.
No appellate win for AbbottCGM IP rivalry unresolved: DexCom’s patent survives appeal intact
US10993642B2 exits this Federal Circuit proceeding without being cancelled or limited by appellate judgment. For the CGM sector — where DexCom and Abbott compete intensely — the patent’s enforceability position is not weakened by this appeal’s outcome. Competitors and product teams developing analyte sensor technology should treat the patent as presumptively valid and consider whether the underlying PTAB or district court record affects their FTO analysis.
Patent presumptively validFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | DexCom, Inc. | Company | Continuous glucose monitoring device company — holder of US10993642B2Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | Abbott Laboratories, Inc. | Company | Abbott Laboratories, Inc. — global diagnostics and CGM competitor (FreeStyle Libre)Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Elisabeth H. Hunt | Attorney | Counsel for DexCom, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Wolf Greenfield & Sacks PC | Law Firm | Representing DexCom, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Eliot Damon Williams | Attorney | Counsel for Abbott Laboratories, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Baker Botts LLP | Law Firm | Representing Abbott Laboratories, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge N/A | Judge | Court of Appeals for the Federal CircuitSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Official order — verbatim text
The dismissal order is deliberately minimal: it records party agreement, invokes Rule 42(b), and allocates costs symmetrically. The absence of any merits language means the Federal Circuit expressed no view on patentability, claim scope, or prior art. For US10993642B2, this outcome is neutral in a legal sense — the patent is neither validated nor invalidated by the appellate proceeding. The cost-sharing provision, while standard in consensual dismissals, is consistent with neither party having extracted a concession sufficient to justify a costs award.
US10993642B2 — Analyte Sensor Technology for Continuous Glucose Monitoring
US10993642B2, filed under application number US17/088446, protects analyte sensor technology in the continuous glucose monitoring domain. Analyte sensors of this class are core components of wearable CGM systems, enabling real-time measurement of glucose levels through subcutaneous or transcutaneous contact. The patent’s claims were subject to a patentability challenge — consistent with IPR or PGR proceedings at the PTAB — indicating that a competitor identified prior art or other grounds to contest the patent’s validity.
The CGM market is one of the most contested IP battlegrounds in medical devices, with DexCom and Abbott’s FreeStyle Libre platform competing directly for market share across consumer and clinical segments. A patent covering analyte sensor architecture or methodology holds significant blocking potential for competitors seeking to develop next-generation CGM devices. The fact that Abbott mounted a patentability challenge — and that DexCom appealed — suggests both parties view US10993642B2 as commercially material. Its continued presumptive validity following this proceeding raises the strategic importance of FTO clearance for any analyte sensor product in this space.
Should your analyte sensor product be cleared against US10993642B2?
R&D teams and product counsel developing wearable or implantable analyte sensor systems — particularly continuous glucose monitors — should treat US10993642B2 as an active FTO concern. The patent survived a Federal Circuit appeal without invalidation, and the invalidity arguments advanced in the underlying proceeding were not validated on the merits. Any product that reads on the sensor architecture, signal processing, or measurement methodology claimed in this patent carries enforcement risk from DexCom.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent enables IP teams to map claim scope against product specifications, identify relevant prior art that may support design-around strategies, and monitor prosecution history for claim amendments that narrow or expand the patent’s reach. For a patent as commercially significant as US10993642B2 in the CGM space, running a structured FTO analysis before product launch or investment decision is strongly advisable.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on US10993642B2 to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar Federal Circuit appeals in analyte sensor and CGM patent disputes
Explore Federal Circuit appeals involving analyte sensor and continuous glucose monitoring patents, including related DexCom and Abbott IP proceedings.
What this case signals for the CGM and analyte sensor IP landscape
A 560-day Federal Circuit appeal ending by mutual dismissal raises questions about negotiated resolution and the durability of analyte sensor patents.
Voluntary Federal Circuit dismissals often follow off-docket negotiation
When both parties agree to dismiss a Federal Circuit appeal after more than 18 months, it typically signals that commercial or licensing discussions progressed in parallel. Neither party’s public filing reveals the terms. IP teams monitoring DexCom or Abbott should watch for subsequent licensing announcements or renewed enforcement activity as a signal of how the dispute was resolved.
US10993642B2 remains an active enforcement risk for CGM competitors
The appeal’s dismissal without a merits ruling means US10993642B2 retains its full presumption of validity. Companies developing or commercialising analyte sensor systems — particularly wearable or implantable CGM devices — should confirm their FTO position against this patent before launch, as the invalidity arguments advanced by Abbott were not validated at the appellate level.
DexCom v Abbott — key questions answered
The Federal Circuit appeal in Case No. 24-1327 was voluntarily dismissed by agreement of both parties under Fed. R. App. P. 42(b) on 18 July 2025. No merits ruling was issued on the patentability of US10993642B2. Each side was ordered to bear its own costs. The case had been pending for 560 days from its January 2024 filing.
US10993642B2, filed under application number US17/088446, is the patent at issue. It covers analyte sensor technology relevant to continuous glucose monitoring systems — a core technology in wearable CGM devices. The patent was subject to a patentability challenge, consistent with an IPR or PGR proceeding, before the appeal was filed.
No. A Rule 42(b) dismissal does not constitute a merits ruling. US10993642B2 retains its full statutory presumption of validity following the dismissal. The Federal Circuit expressed no view on claim scope, prior art, or patentability. The patent’s enforceability is not weakened by the appellate proceeding’s termination.
The public order does not specify whether the dismissal was with or without prejudice. The order states only that the proceeding is dismissed under Rule 42(b) and that each side bears its own costs. Practitioners should review the underlying docket for any accompanying stipulation that clarifies the prejudice character of the dismissal.
For competitors in the CGM and analyte sensor market, the dismissal without merits adjudication means US10993642B2 remains an active enforcement risk. Abbott’s invalidity arguments were not validated on appeal. Companies developing analyte sensor products should conduct FTO analysis against this patent. The symmetric cost order and lengthy pre-dismissal period suggest a negotiated resolution may have occurred outside the public record.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.