Short Summary
This procedural order in the UPC case involving Roche Diabetes Care GmbH and Tandem Diabetes Care, Inc. addressed a request for an extension of time to file a rejoinder in revocation proceedings. The Court ultimately denied the request, emphasizing that while flexibility is key in UPC procedure, extensions must be based on objective impossibility or extreme difficulty. This ruling reinforces the strict standard required for procedural relief, particularly when parties introduce new evidence.
Detailed Summary
In the complex world of patent litigation, procedural deadlines are often seen as flexible guidelines. However, a recent ruling by the UPC demonstrates that this flexibility has strict limits, especially when parties attempt to delay proceedings for strategic advantage.
This case involved Tandem Diabetes Care, Inc. (Claimant) and Roche Diabetes Care GmbH (Respondent) concerning EP 2 196 231, a patent related to medical devices. The core dispute was not over the merits of the technology itself, but rather a procedural motion: Tandem requested an extension of time to file a rejoinder in revocation proceedings against Roche. This seemingly minor request carried significant implications for the litigation timeline and evidence presentation.
The central tension revolved around how strictly the UPC should enforce its timelines. While the court acknowledges that procedures must be interpreted flexibly, Tandem sought relief based on circumstances requiring more time to introduce new prior art documents. The Court had to weigh the need for procedural fairness against the risk of allowing strategic delays.
The UPC ultimately denied the request for an extension. The ruling was clear: while flexibility is a core principle of UPC procedure, extensions must be grounded in objective impossibility or extreme difficulty. Simply introducing new prior art documents—a predictable reaction within revocation proceedings—did not meet this high threshold. The Court emphasized that procedural deadlines are generally mandatory.
This decision serves as a critical warning for all parties navigating the Unified Patent Court. While the UPC encourages an open and flexible process, it does not operate on goodwill alone. If you miss a deadline or require an extension, your justification must meet an exceptionally high standard of objective impossibility. Strategic timing is paramount; do not rely on the promise of procedural flexibility when facing strict deadlines.
What the Court Held — Ratio Decidendi
The UPC requires procedural deadlines to be interpreted flexibly, but extensions must only be granted in justified exceptional cases where meeting the deadline is objectively impossible or extremely difficult. The submission of new prior art documents alone does not meet this high threshold, as such reactions are predictable within revocation proceedings.
Practitioner Note
This case demonstrates the evidentiary and procedural standards applied in patent matters before Paris (FR) Central Division - Seat. Understanding the court's reasoning in Tandem Diabetes Care, Inc. vs Roche Diabetes Care GmbH is valuable context for structuring arguments or assessing risk in similar proceedings.
Related Cases
Maxeon Solar Pte. Ltd.vsAiko Energy Germany GmbH, Solarlab Aiko Europe GmbH, Memodo GmbH, Aiko Energy Netherlands B.V., Libra Energy B.V., VDH Solar Groothandel B.V., PowerDeal SRL, Coenergia Srl a Socio Unico
In a procedural order concerning confidential information in an infringement and revocation action, the Düsseldorf Local Division addressed access rights to sensitive financial data. The Court clarified that parties must provide specific, concrete reasons when objecting to or requesting access to confidential information. It ultimately granted access to certain independent consultants involved in patent matters while rejecting a request for another party, emphasizing the strict adherence required under confidentiality rules.
ZTE CorporationvsSamsung Electronics Italia S.p.A, Samsung Electronics France, Samsung Electronics GmbH, Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., Samsung Electronics Benelux B.V., Samsung Electronics Romania S.R.L.
This UPC decision addresses a critical procedural issue concerning the valuation of cases involving Standard Essential Patents (SEPs) and FRAND counterclaims. The Court ruled that a FRAND counterclaim significantly expands the scope and value in dispute beyond the initial infringement action, distinguishing it from a simple defense or a revocation counterclaim. This ruling clarifies that SEPs litigation can involve complex valuations based on licensing terms, even if those fees exceed standard infringement claim values.
SWARCO Futurit Verkehrssignalsysteme GmbHvsChainzone Technology (Foshan) Co., Ltd.
This UPC appellate decision addresses the complex legal status of a third-party assisting party (Streithelfer) when the main supported party withdraws their appeal. Chainzone, acting as an assistant to Strabag, sought to continue its own infringement appeal against Swarco. However, because Strabag reached an out-of-court settlement and withdrew its appeal, the court ruled that Chainzone's independent legal standing was lost. Consequently, Chainzone's appeal was dismissed without subject matter.
Motorola Mobility LLCvsASUSTek Computer Inc; ASUS Computer GmbH; ASUSTEK (UK) LIMITED
Motorola Mobility LLC brought an infringement action against ASUSTek and its subsidiaries regarding the use of their 5G-enabled devices, alleging that these products utilized technology covered by EP 3 972 309. The Munich Local Division ultimately dismissed the infringement claim. Crucially, the court also declared claims 1 and 11 of the patent invalid for a wide range of UPC member states, providing a significant defense for the defendants.
Hologic, Inc.vsSiemens Healthineers AG; Siemens Healthcare GmbH; Siemens Healthineers Nederland B.V.; Siemens Healthcare SAS
In a procedural order concerning the infringement and revocation of EP 2 352 431 B1, the Düsseldorf Local Division addressed issues of trade secret protection. The court granted the request to classify certain information regarding the design and functioning of the attacked embodiments as confidential under Art. 58 UPCA. This decision reinforces the mechanism for protecting sensitive commercial data during complex UPC litigation involving major medical device manufacturers.
Dealing with a patent challenge?
Whether it's a Section 3(d) rejection, a post-grant opposition, or a FRAND dispute, Arctic's patent litigation team has handled it. Get a strategy call.
Disclaimer: This page contains an automated summary based on publicly available judicial records. The content is generated for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Always verify details against the original source judgment before relying on this information for any legal purpose. If you believe any information is inaccurate, please contact us.