Breach of a standstill agreement does not affect jurisdiction or admissibility

No items found.
​
January 22, 2025
No items found.
Table of contents
  • Toc Heading
  • Toc Heading

Tandem Diabetes Care, Inc., Tandem Diabetes Care Europe B.V. v Roche Diabetes Care GmbH UPC_CFI_454/2023

Decision of 18 December 2024 (ORD_598508/2023[1])

The claimants sought revocation of EP 2196231, belonging to the defendant, before the UPC Central Division in Paris.

The patentee raised a preliminary objection to the action. It argued that according to a standstill agreement between the parties, a party has to inform the other party of the intention to file a lawsuit 90 days before the lawsuit is filed. Alleging this requirement not to have been met, the patentee argued that the Courts had no jurisdiction. This was rejected by the judge rapporteur.[2] The patentee continued to raise the issue in the main proceedings.

The Court considered that any breach of a standstill agreement does not deprive the Court of jurisdiction, nor does it render an action inadmissible. It can only give rise to liability for breach of contract.

Accordingly, the Court went on to consider the merits of the case. It found that none of the grounds of invalidity were well founded and therefore ordered the patent to be maintained as granted. Costs were awarded against the claimants.

[1] https://www.unified-patent-court.org/en/node/1347

[2] Reported here https://eip.com/global/latest/article/upc_rules_it_has_jurisdiction_in_cases_where_a_claim_is_brought_in_violation_of_a_contract/

Recent Case Reports

See all Case Reports

Transfer of costs application from Court of Appeal to Court of First Instance rejected
22 April 2026
The UPC Court of Appeal ruled that it lacks jurisdiction to assess costs applications and confirmed they must be filed at the Court of First Instance, rejecting a transfer request in Rematec v Europe Forestry.
​
Revocation of an independent claim does not automatically affect the validity of unchallenged independent claims
21 April 2026
In Emporia v Seoul Viosys, the UPC Central Division confirmed that the revocation of an independent claim does not automatically affect the validity of unchallenged claims. The decision underscores the importance of challenging all relevant claims where full patent revocation is sought.
​
Seriously deficient disclosure process not sufficient to reopen costs order - Cabo v MGA
08 April 2026
A High Court decision highlighting the consequences of inadequate disclosure searches under PD57AD and reaffirming that costs orders are final, even where later failures come to light.
​