DexCom v. Abbott Laboratories: Federal Circuit Appeal Voluntarily Dismissed
DexCom, Inc. and Abbott Laboratories, Inc. clashed at the Federal Circuit over the validity of US10993642B2, a patent covering analyte sensor technology central to continuous glucose monitoring. The parties jointly agreed to dismiss the appeal under Fed. R. App. P. 42(b), with each side bearing its own costs — leaving no merits ruling on the patent’s validity after 560 days of proceedings.
A CGM patent battle ends quietly — but the IP risk persists
DexCom, Inc. filed this Federal Circuit appeal on 5 January 2024, contesting an invalidity or cancellation action targeting US10993642B2, a patent protecting analyte sensor technology at the core of continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) devices. The case pitted two of the dominant players in the CGM market — DexCom and Abbott Laboratories — against each other in a high-stakes patentability dispute before the nation’s pre-eminent patent appellate court.
The appeal closed on 18 July 2025 when the parties jointly agreed to dismiss proceedings under Fed. R. App. P. 42(b), with each side bearing its own costs. Because the dismissal was voluntary and the public record specifies no ‘with prejudice’ or ‘without prejudice’ qualifier in the procedural record, the precise preclusive effect on future challenges to US10993642B2 is not determinable from publicly available filings alone.
The 560-day duration suggests substantive engagement before the parties reached their agreement, consistent with settlement or a commercial resolution negotiated in parallel — though the public record is silent on any underlying deal terms. The absence of a merits ruling means the validity of US10993642B2 remains judicially unresolved, and the patent’s enforceability could still be contested in future proceedings by Abbott or other parties in the CGM sector.
Filing to Voluntary dismissal in 560 days
560 days from filing to closure — longer than the median Federal Circuit appeal
Appeal dismissed by agreement: what the voluntary exit means for both parties
Fed. R. App. P. 42(b): dismissal by stipulation, no merits adjudication
Rule 42(b) allows appellate parties to dismiss an appeal by filing a signed agreement. The Federal Circuit does not examine the merits and issues no substantive ruling on validity or patentability. The court’s only role is to record the dismissal and allocate costs as agreed. This means US10993642B2 exits this proceeding with its validity status legally unchanged by the appellate court.
No merits rulingWith or without prejudice? The public record is silent
A voluntary dismissal ‘with prejudice’ bars the dismissing party from re-litigating the same claims; ‘without prejudice’ preserves that right. The publicly available record for this Federal Circuit dismissal does not specify which applies. Practitioners should treat the preclusive effect as unresolved until confirmed by further filings or any underlying agreement. Abbott’s ability to re-challenge US10993642B2 in future IPR or district court proceedings cannot be confirmed from this record.
Preclusion uncertainPatent survives this challenge — validity question remains open
DexCom retains US10993642B2 in its portfolio without an adverse validity ruling. The patent can continue to be asserted in licensing and enforcement contexts. However, the absence of a court affirmance means DexCom has not obtained judicial validation of the patent’s claims, which limits the deterrent effect of this outcome against future challengers in the CGM space.
Patent intact, not validatedCGM sector uncertainty: the analyte sensor IP fight is unresolved
DexCom and Abbott compete directly in the fast-growing CGM market. A voluntary dismissal without a merits ruling leaves the contested claims of US10993642B2 in a grey zone — other market participants cannot rely on a court-validated scope. Companies developing competing analyte sensor products should treat this patent as fully enforceable and conduct independent FTO analysis, as the dispute’s commercial resolution does not bind third parties.
FTO risk remainsFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | DexCom, Inc. | Company | Medical device company — holder of US10993642B2, analyte sensor patentSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | Abbott Laboratories, Inc. | Company | Global healthcare company and DexCom competitor in the CGM device marketSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Elisabeth H. Hunt | Attorney | Counsel for DexCom, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Gregory S. Nieberg | Attorney | Counsel for DexCom, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Nathan R. Speed | Attorney | Counsel for DexCom, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Richard F. Giunta | 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 Federal Circuit’s order records a mutual agreement to dismiss under Fed. R. App. P. 42(b), with costs split equally. The court issued no substantive ruling on the patentability of US10993642B2 — the underlying invalidity or cancellation action is neither resolved nor rejected on its merits. The equal cost allocation is consistent with a negotiated exit rather than one party conceding defeat, and suggests neither side secured a clear litigation advantage at the appellate stage of these proceedings.
US10993642B2 — Analyte sensor technology for continuous glucose monitoring
US10993642B2 (application number US17/088446) protects analyte sensor technology — the hardware and signal-processing architecture that enables continuous, real-time measurement of physiological analytes such as glucose in the human body. This class of technology underpins wearable CGM devices, which have become a standard of care in diabetes management. The patent’s claims cover design and functional elements of the sensor that differentiate professional-grade CGM systems in a crowded and commercially valuable product category.
In the context of the DexCom–Abbott rivalry, this patent represents a potential competitive moat around sensor design. Abbott’s FreeStyle Libre platform and DexCom’s G-series devices compete for the same patient population and clinical contracts. A successfully enforced patent of this scope could restrict a competitor’s design freedom, affect device approval pathways, and carry royalty implications across millions of units. The unresolved validity status means the patent’s strategic weight cannot yet be fully discounted by any market participant.
Should you run an FTO against US10993642B2?
Any team developing, manufacturing, or commercialising analyte sensor products — including continuous glucose monitors, implantable biosensors, or wearable physiological monitoring devices — should treat US10993642B2 as an active FTO consideration. The Federal Circuit dismissal has not limited the patent’s claim scope, and DexCom retains full enforcement rights. Medical device OEMs, component suppliers, and software platforms that interface with sensor hardware are all potentially within the patent’s reach.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent enables R&D and IP teams to map the claim landscape of US10993642B2 against your product specifications quickly and systematically. Eureka identifies claim-level overlap, surfaces relevant prior art that may support invalidity arguments, and tracks the patent’s citation network to flag related DexCom filings in the analyte sensor space — helping you make informed design and clearance decisions before committing to product roadmaps.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on US10993642B2 to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar Federal Circuit analyte sensor and CGM patent disputes
Federal Circuit appeals involving analyte sensor and continuous glucose monitoring patents, including patentability challenges between CGM device competitors.
What this case signals for the CGM and analyte sensor IP landscape
A voluntary Federal Circuit dismissal between two CGM leaders leaves core sensor IP unresolved — and the sector exposed to renewed disputes.
Voluntary dismissal is not a safe harbour for competitors in CGM
US10993642B2 remains enforceable and unjudicially validated. Any company commercialising analyte sensor technology — wearable CGM devices, implantable sensors, or adjacent monitoring platforms — should treat this patent as an active enforcement risk. The dismissal resolves nothing about claim scope or validity for third parties.
Rule 42(b) exits often signal commercial resolution, not weakness
When two well-resourced adversaries like DexCom and Abbott agree to dismiss after 560 days of Federal Circuit proceedings, it typically signals a negotiated commercial outcome — licensing, cross-licensing, or a business arrangement. IP teams monitoring competitor relationships should watch for post-dismissal product launches or partnership announcements that may reveal deal contours.
DexCom v Abbott — key questions answered
The Federal Circuit appeal (No. 24-1326) was voluntarily dismissed by agreement of DexCom and Abbott under Fed. R. App. P. 42(b) on 18 July 2025, with each side bearing its own costs. The court issued no ruling on the merits of the patentability challenge to US10993642B2.
US10993642B2 is a DexCom patent covering analyte sensor technology used in continuous glucose monitoring devices. Abbott, a direct CGM competitor, pursued an invalidity or cancellation action challenging the patent’s patentability — a common strategy to clear design freedom and reduce licensing exposure in the CGM market.
No. A Rule 42(b) dismissal by agreement does not adjudicate patent validity. US10993642B2 remains in force and enforceable. The dismissal resolves only this specific appellate proceeding; it does not constitute a judicial finding that the patent’s claims are valid or invalid.
This depends on whether the dismissal was agreed with or without prejudice — information not determinable from the public record of case 24-1326. If without prejudice, Abbott could potentially file a new IPR petition or raise invalidity as a defence in district court litigation. Legal counsel should review any underlying stipulation for preclusion terms.
The order that each side bear its own costs is consistent with a mutually negotiated exit rather than one party conceding defeat. In Federal Circuit practice, this cost split typically suggests the parties reached a commercial or licensing resolution and agreed to end the proceeding on neutral terms, though the public record does not confirm any underlying agreement.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.