Download now: life sciences - whitepaper: building an investable ip portfolio
​

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

Court of Appeal focuses on the technical effect to determine added matter
30 September 2026
The Court of Appeal provided guidance on their approach to assessing added subject matter, highlighting that the technical effect underlying the invention and how the claimed and unclaimed features contribute thereto is central to the analysis.
​
Court of Appeal affirms interpretation of product-by-process features in claims, and clarifies applicable law pre-June 2023
29 September 2026
The Court of Appeal confirmed that product-by-process features in a product claim limit the claim only where the specified process imparts characteristics that can be achieved solely by that process. It also clarified the law applicable to acts occurring before 1 June 2023, holding that UPC law may apply to ongoing infringement for injunctive relief, whereas damages for acts completed before that date are governed by national law, and that claims for provisional protection remain governed by national law.
​
Appeal reveals tricky deadlines for orders contained in decisions
29 September 2026
The Court of Appeal held that where a “privileged order” under Rule 220(1)(c), such as an order relating to the production of evidence under Article 59 UPCA and Rule 190 RoP, is contained within a decision on the merits, a 15 day appeal deadline for that order applies, separate from the substantive appeal deadline. Appeals challenging such orders after that deadline are inadmissible, and parties cannot circumvent the appeal rules by re-filing substantially the same request in the appeal proceedings.
​