Breach of a standstill agreement does not affect jurisdiction or admissibility

​
Darren Smyth
​
January 22, 2025
#
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

UPC Court of appeal issues final decision, despite no finding on infringement at first instance
30 March 2026
In Rematec v Europe Forestry, the UPC Court of Appeal overturned the Mannheim Local Division’s revocation of the patent and, applying Article 75(1) UPCA, issued a final decision on both validity and infringement despite no infringement finding at first instance. The Court adopted a narrower, description‑led approach to claim interpretation, confirmed the patent’s validity, found infringement, and granted final remedies without referring the case back to the Court of First Instance.
​
Litigation insurance as security for costs
30 March 2026
In Syntorr v Arthrex, the UPC Court of Appeal clarified that while litigation insurance is not itself a form of security under Rule 158 RoP, it is a relevant factor when deciding whether security for costs should be ordered at all. By failing to consider the claimant’s insurance policy, the Munich Local Division wrongly exercised its discretion. The Court set aside the €2 million security order and confirmed that insurance can mitigate concerns about cost recoverability.
​
National law applies to claims for loss of profit if the events occurred before the UPC came into force
30 March 2026
In Fives v REEL, the Hamburg Local Division of the UPC dismissed a standalone damages action despite prior findings of infringement. Although the UPC was competent to assess damages, the court held that national law applied because the relevant events pre‑dated the UPC’s entry into force. Applying German law, the court found that the claimant had not proven causation or lost profit, highlighting the demanding evidentiary burden for price‑reduction damages claims and the importance of substantiating counterfactual tender outcomes.
​