REGISTER now: Sweden Event - A new era for innovation: AI, the UPC and global patent opportunities
​

Breach of a standstill agreement does not affect jurisdiction or admissibility

​
Darren Smyth
​
January 22, 2025
Info
Tags
UPC
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

Bringing enforcement proceedings while an appeal is still pending risks liability for defendant’s costs
24 September 2026
The Court of Appeal held that setting aside a first-instance decision granting relief subject to recurring penalties generally has retroactive effect. Any penalty fees already paid will be refunded by the Court. The value of proceedings is determined by the interest of the party that brought the action. This is not changed as a result of an appeal. A claimant bringing enforcement proceedings while an appeal is still pending does so at its own risk and may be liable for the defendant’s costs related to the enforcement proceedings.‍
​
Unsigned Appeal Rejected as Inadmissible
24 September 2026
The Court of Appeal held that a statement of appeal that is not electronically signed is not validly lodged under Rule 4.1 RoP, and that this defect cannot be cured after expiry of the non-extendable appeal period. The appeal was therefore rejected as inadmissible, and a late application for re-establishment of rights was itself held to be out of time.
​
Scripps mRNA reengineering patent found invalid and not infringed by Comirnaty
08 September 2026
The Local Division Munich invalidated Promosome's licensed mRNA patent over Scripps' codon-optimisation method, then found BioNTech's Comirnaty vaccine would not have infringed the claims even had they been valid.
​