Executive Summary
In this procedural order, the UPC Central Division addressed a request by Tandem Diabetes Care to extend its deadline for filing a defense in an action for declaration of non-infringement against Roche. The Court ultimately denied the extension, emphasizing that while flexibility is required under UPC rules, extensions must be based on objective difficulties preventing timely submission, not merely on strategic concerns related to preliminary objections or parallel proceedings. This decision reinforces the strict application of procedural deadlines unless exceptional circumstances are proven.
What the Court Held — Ratio Decidendi
The UPC judge-rapporteur ruled that procedural deadlines, such as those for filing a defense in non-infringement actions, should not be extended merely because a preliminary objection has been lodged or due to potential future complications. Extensions must only be granted in justified exceptional cases where meeting the deadline is objectively impossible or very difficult.
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
Insulet CorporationvsA. Menarini Diagnostics s.r.l.
This UPC Court of Appeal decision addressed a procedural request for an extension of time, rather than the merits of the underlying patent dispute. Menarini sought an extension to file its statement of response due to technical difficulties with the Case Management System (CMS). The Court dismissed the request, clarifying that automatic extensions under R.301.2 RoP apply when electronic filing is temporarily impossible, making a discretionary order superfluous.
Steros GPA Innovative S.L.vsOTEC Präzisionsfinish GmbH
Steros GPA Innovative S.L. successfully obtained a provisional injunction against OTEC Präzisionsfinish GmbH regarding the use of its electrolytic medium in electropolishing processes (EP 4 249 647 B1). The Hamburg Local Division upheld the cease and desist order, imposing significant recurring penalty payments for non-compliance. This case highlights the practical application of provisional measures within the UPC framework, emphasizing the balance between protecting patent rights and considering market interests.
Cretes NVvsHyler BV
This decision from the Brussels Local Division confirms a settlement agreement between Cretes NV and Hyler BV, thereby terminating both the infringement and validity proceedings. The court also addressed the complex issue of cost allocation following the mediation, confirming the parties' agreement on how costs would be distributed. This case highlights the practical application of UPC rules regarding settlements (R. 365) and the subsequent recovery or reduction of judicial fees.
bioMérieux Deutschland GmbH, bioMérieux Italia S.p.A., bioMérieux SA, bioMérieux Austria GmbH, bioMérieux Benelux BV, bioMérieux Portugal, Lda.vsLabrador Diagnostics LLC
In this complex UPC case involving bioMérieux and Labrador Diagnostics, the Court issued a critical procedural order following an interim conference. Recognizing that the patent EP 3 756 767 B1 faced an overwhelming number of invalidity attacks, the Panel mandated that the challenging party (bioMérieux) significantly narrow its focus. This ruling emphasizes the need for legal rigor and strategic clarity in complex revocation proceedings, ensuring the oral hearing remains focused on the most promising grounds of attack.
Bodycap, Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique - CNRS, Université de RennesvsEPO
This UPC decision addressed an appeal challenging the EPO's rejection of a unitary effect application for EP3691518. The claimants, including Bodycap and CNRS, sought to overturn the administrative rejection based on minor procedural errors regarding their address details. However, the UPC upheld the EPO's decision, emphasizing strict adherence to deadlines and legal certainty in the context of unitary patent procedures. This case serves as a strong reminder that procedural compliance is mandatory when applying for unitary effect.
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.