Download now: Transatlantic Patent Litigation whitepaper - MORE THAN A PARALLEL CASE
​

UPC rules it has jurisdiction in cases where a claim is brought in violation of a contract

No items found.
​
May 23, 2024
Additional information
Chevron icon
Info
Tags
UPC
Recent cases
Jurisdiction
Table of contents
Chevron icon
Table of contents
  • Toc Heading
  • Toc Heading

Tandem Diabetes Care, Inc., Tandem Diabetes Care Europe B.V. v Roche Diabetes Care GmbH (UPC_CFI_589997/2023)

Order of 10 May 2024 (ORD_7903/2024) [1]

Tandem Diabetes Care, Inc & Tandem Diabetes Care Europe B.V. ("Tandem") have sued Roche Diabetes Care GmbH ("Roche") for revocation of EP2196231 as well as for a declaration of non-infringement.

Roche lodged a preliminary objection pursuant to Rule 19(1)(b) RoP stating that the UPC did not have any jurisdiction as Tandem's claim for revocation was in breach of a 90 day standstill clause in a "Confidential Disclosure Agreement" between Tandem and Roche. Tandem disputed this arguing, inter alia, that they were not in breach of the standstill agreement and that the standstill agreement did not affect the jurisdiction of the UPC in any event.

The Court[2] preferred Roche's interpretation of the relevant clause in the Confidential Disclosure Agreement and did not agree with Tandem that the standstill only related to legal proceedings relating to confidential information.

The Court dismissed Tandem's argument that standstill clauses should not affect the jurisdiction as it that would be a breach of a party's "right to access to court and to a fair trial". This was because the Court found that the relevant rights[3] are not absolute and a 90 day standstill agreement would have a legitimate purpose and be proportionate.

The Court then found that brining a claim in violation of a standstill clause did not affect the Court's jurisdiction as the breach did not mean that either (a) the Court should defer to an alternative jurisdiction, which the Court refers to as a ‘relative' lack of jurisdiction, or (b) that the Court was not granted power to resolve the dispute (i.e. revocation of EP2196231) in question, which the Court refers to as an ‘absolute' lack of jurisdiction. A particular reason the Court for rejecting Roche's argument was that this would mean that the Court would temporarily lack jurisdiction and would then regain jurisdiction after a short period of time, which the Court thought contrary to the objective criteria by which to assess jurisdiction.

The Court did leave open the possibility that violation of the standstill agreement might affect this litigation going forwards but left that to be decided once the parties have completed the pleadings pursuant to Rule 43 RoP.

[1] https://www.unified-patent-court.org/en/node/703

[2] Paris Central Division

[3] Articles 6 & 13 of the European Convention on Human Rights, and 47 & 48 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union

Recent Case Reports

See all Case Reports

Invalidity of juicer patent upheld on appeal
03 November 2026
The Court of Appeal upheld the invalidity of Hurom’s juicer patent for lack of inventive step, while clarifying the admissibility requirements for patent amendments and the use of the unamended description when construing amended claims. It also confirmed the UPC’s jurisdiction over infringement in Poland despite Poland not being a UPCA Contracting Member State, but found that Hurom had failed to establish infringement under Polish law.
​
Evidence preservation doesn’t stretch to interrogation
03 November 2026
The Court of Appeal confirmed that evidence-preservation orders may be granted ex parte where there is a demonstrable risk that evidence could be destroyed or become unavailable, and that such orders may extend to relevant commercial and promotional documents. However, Art. 60 UPCA does not permit a bailiff or expert to question the defendant’s personnel on substantive technical matters, which must instead be handled under the Court’s control.
​
UPC Court of Appeal clarifies claim construction, the role of party experts, and provisional measures in direct-competition cases
03 November 2026
The CoA’s decision of 30 April 2025 in Insulet v EOFlow provides important guidance on claim construction, the role of party-appointed experts and the requirements for provisional injunctions.
​