DexCom v. Abbott Laboratories: Federal Circuit Affirms Denial of CGM Injunction
DexCom asserted five continuous glucose monitoring patents against Abbott’s FreeStyle Libre 2 and 3 systems, seeking to halt sales via preliminary injunction. The Federal Circuit affirmed the district court’s denial in 252 days, leaving Abbott’s CGM products on the market pending further proceedings.
Federal Circuit backs Abbott in DexCom CGM injunction fight
DexCom, Inc. filed this appeal at the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on 26 April 2023, challenging a district court order that denied its motion for a preliminary injunction against Abbott Laboratories and Abbott Diabetes Care Sales Corporation. The dispute centres on five US patents — US10993642B2, US10702215B2, US10702193B2, US10980452B2, and US11000213B2 — all directed to continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) technology. The accused products are Abbott’s FreeStyle Libre 14 Day, FreeStyle Libre 2, and FreeStyle Libre 3 flash glucose monitoring systems.
The Federal Circuit closed the appeal on 3 January 2024, affirming the district court’s denial of the preliminary injunction and recording the basis of termination as ‘Appeal Dismissed.’ The court’s holding — that the district court did not abuse its discretion — is a highly deferential standard, meaning DexCom faced the burden of showing a clear legal error below, not merely a different weighing of the four-factor injunction test. Abbott’s CGM products therefore remained commercially available throughout and after this appellate proceeding.
Resolution in 252 days is relatively swift for a Federal Circuit appeal, consistent with the court’s expedited handling of preliminary injunction matters where commercial harm is time-sensitive. The affirmance does not resolve the underlying infringement merits, which may still be litigated at the district court level. What drove DexCom’s decision not to pursue the injunction further — whether settlement discussions, a strategic pivot, or confidence in the district court proceedings — is not apparent from the public appellate record.
Filing to dismissal in 252 days
252 days from filing to Federal Circuit decision — appeal resolved in under 9 months
Federal Circuit affirms: no abuse of discretion in denying DexCom’s preliminary injunction
Abuse of discretion: a high bar DexCom could not clear
Appellate review of a preliminary injunction denial applies the abuse-of-discretion standard — one of the most deferential in US federal appellate law. DexCom was required to show not that the district court was wrong, but that it made a clear error of judgment or applied incorrect law. The Federal Circuit’s affirmance signals the district court’s balancing of likelihood of success, irreparable harm, balance of hardships, and public interest was within the permissible range.
Deferential appellate reviewAbbott’s FreeStyle Libre products stay on shelves
A preliminary injunction, had it been granted, would have required Abbott to halt US sales of FreeStyle Libre 2 and 3 — two of the most commercially significant flash glucose monitoring devices globally. The affirmance means Abbott faces no injunctive constraint from this appellate action. However, the underlying infringement case at the district court level is likely ongoing, leaving long-term liability exposure unresolved.
Abbott retains market accessFive CGM patents — broad coverage across sensing and monitoring
DexCom asserted five issued US patents, all in the continuous glucose monitoring space. The breadth of the assertion — covering multiple patent families and application numbers — suggests DexCom pursued a portfolio-based injunction strategy rather than relying on a single claim. Whether each patent met the likelihood-of-success threshold for a preliminary injunction is a key question the district court’s denial implicitly addressed.
5-patent portfolio assertionQuinn Emanuel vs. Kirkland & Ellis — top-tier CGM patent battle
DexCom retained Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan alongside Shaw Keller LLP; Abbott engaged Kirkland & Ellis. Both pairings are consistent with high-stakes technology patent litigation involving hundreds of millions in potential commercial exposure. The calibre of counsel on both sides suggests neither party treated this appeal as a routine procedural step — each invested heavily in the Federal Circuit briefing.
Elite litigation teams engagedFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | DexCom, Inc. | Company | Medical device company — holder of US10993642B2 and 4 further CGM patentsSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | Abbott Laboratories, Inc. | Company | Abbott Laboratories and Abbott Diabetes Care Sales Corp. — makers of FreeStyle Libre CGM systemsSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Alexander Hale Loomis | Attorney | Counsel for DexCom, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | David Leon Bilsker | Attorney | Counsel for DexCom, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | John W. Shaw, Esq. | Attorney | Counsel for DexCom, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Nathan Hamstra | Attorney | Counsel for DexCom, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Valerie Anne Lozano I | Attorney | Counsel for DexCom, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | William Adams | Attorney | Counsel for DexCom, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Amanda J. Hollis | Attorney | Counsel for Abbott Laboratories, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Ashley Ross | Attorney | Counsel for Abbott Laboratories, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Benjamin Adam Lasky | Attorney | Counsel for Abbott Laboratories, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Ellisen Shelton Turner | Attorney | Counsel for Abbott Laboratories, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Jason M. Wilcox | Attorney | Counsel for Abbott Laboratories, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | John C. O’Quinn | Attorney | Counsel for Abbott Laboratories, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | William H. Burgess | Attorney | Counsel for Abbott Laboratories, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge / | Chief Judge | Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit — Chief JudgeSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Stipulation of dismissal — official text
The Federal Circuit’s holding — ‘The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion for a preliminary injunction. We therefore affirm.’ — is narrow in scope. It resolves only the injunction question and expressly leaves the merits of infringement and validity for the district court. Abbott cannot treat this as a finding of non-infringement; DexCom cannot treat it as a finding of invalidity. Both parties return to district court litigation with the substantive patent questions still open.
US10993642B2 and four further DexCom CGM patents
The five patents asserted by DexCom — US10993642B2, US10702215B2, US10702193B2, US10980452B2, and US11000213B2 — are all issued US patents in the continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) domain. These patents likely cover aspects of subcutaneous glucose sensing, signal processing, transmitter architecture, and iCGM interoperability, consistent with DexCom’s broader patent portfolio protecting its G6 iCGM platform. The application numbers suggest filings concentrated in the 2019–2020 period, corresponding to a wave of CGM innovation as the market moved toward factory-calibrated, wearable sensors.
Strategically, this patent cluster represents DexCom’s attempt to ring-fence the flash glucose monitoring space that Abbott has dominated with FreeStyle Libre. Abbott’s FreeStyle Libre 2 and 3 compete directly with DexCom’s G6 and G7 systems in a US CGM market estimated at several billion dollars annually. A successful assertion across multiple patent families would have created meaningful barriers for Abbott’s next-generation sensor roadmap. The affirmance of the injunction denial does not extinguish those patent rights — it merely defers the commercial consequence to trial.
Should your team run an FTO against DexCom’s CGM patent portfolio?
Any company developing, manufacturing, or distributing continuous glucose monitoring sensors, wearable analyte detection systems, or iCGM-compatible devices in the US market should treat DexCom’s patent estate as a live FTO priority. This case demonstrates DexCom’s willingness to assert multiple patents simultaneously in an attempt to halt competitor products at the injunction stage — a posture that signals active enforcement intent. Medical device OEMs, sensor component suppliers, and digital health platforms integrating CGM data should assess exposure across all five asserted patents.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent allows R&D and IP teams to map claim scope across DexCom’s CGM portfolio against your own product specifications in hours rather than weeks. You can run claim-by-claim analysis on all five asserted patents, identify design-around pathways, and set up automated alerts if DexCom or Abbott file continuation patents that extend coverage into adjacent technical areas — critical in a sector where prosecution activity remains high.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on US10993642B2 to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar CGM and medical device patent infringement appeals at the Federal Circuit
PatSnap Eureka tracks related litigation across truck body equipment, vehicle accessories, and comparable infringement actions in the Georgia district system.
What this case signals for the CGM patent enforcement landscape
The Federal Circuit’s affirmance reshapes the injunction calculus in wearable glucose monitoring — a market worth tens of billions globally.
Preliminary injunctions remain difficult to win in CGM patent disputes
The Federal Circuit’s deferential affirmance reinforces how difficult it is to obtain — and maintain on appeal — a preliminary injunction in complex medical device patent cases. For CGM competitors, this signals that product launches are unlikely to be halted at the injunction stage even when a strong patent portfolio is asserted, particularly where accused products are already widely distributed.
Portfolio breadth alone does not guarantee injunctive relief
DexCom’s five-patent assertion did not overcome the district court’s denial, suggesting that claim mapping across multiple patents did not establish a clear likelihood of success on any single claim sufficient to support emergency relief. IP teams building CGM enforcement strategies should treat preliminary injunctions as a long-shot remedy and plan primary litigation timelines accordingly.
DexCom v Abbott — key questions answered
The Federal Circuit affirmed the district court’s denial of DexCom’s motion for a preliminary injunction against Abbott’s FreeStyle Libre products. The court held the district court did not abuse its discretion. The decision closed on 3 January 2024 and does not resolve the underlying infringement merits.
DexCom asserted five US patents: US10993642B2, US10702215B2, US10702193B2, US10980452B2, and US11000213B2. All relate to continuous glucose monitoring technology and were asserted against Abbott’s FreeStyle Libre 14 Day, FreeStyle Libre 2, and FreeStyle Libre 3 systems.
The accused products were Abbott’s FreeStyle Libre 14 Day, FreeStyle Libre 2, and FreeStyle Libre 3 flash glucose monitoring systems, sold by Abbott Laboratories and Abbott Diabetes Care Sales Corporation. DexCom’s own Dexcom G6 iCGM system was cited as the embodying product.
The abuse of discretion standard is highly deferential. DexCom had to show the district court made a clear error in its injunction analysis — not simply that a different court might have ruled differently. Affirmance under this standard does not mean Abbott was found non-infringing; it means the district court’s weighing of the four-factor preliminary injunction test was within legal bounds.
No. The affirmance resolves only the preliminary injunction appeal. The underlying infringement case at the district court level — covering validity, infringement on the merits, and potential damages — is likely to continue separately. DexCom’s five CGM patents remain in force and enforceable.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.