Short Summary
Tandem Diabetes filed a revocation action against Roche Diabetes Care GmbH before the Central Division Paris concerning European Patent EP 2 196 231, relating to a system for ambulatory drug infusion. The Central Division dismissed the revocation action and maintained the patent as granted, after which Tandem Diabetes appealed. Following the appeal, the parties reached a settlement and jointly requested the Court of Appeal to confirm it, which the Court did, terminating the appellate proceedings and confirming that each party bears its own costs.
Detailed Summary
This case concerns an appeal before the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court arising from a revocation action filed by Tandem Diabetes Care Europe B.V. and Tandem Diabetes Care, Inc. (jointly referred to as 'Tandem Diabetes') against Roche Diabetes Care GmbH ('Roche Diabetes') regarding European Patent EP 2 196 231, which relates to a system for ambulatory drug infusion.
Before the Court of First Instance (Central Division Paris), Tandem Diabetes sought revocation of the patent. In its impugned decision of 18 December 2024 (ACT_589997/2023, UPC_CFI_454/2023), the Central Division dismissed the revocation action, maintained the patent at issue as granted, and ordered Tandem Diabetes to bear the costs of the proceedings.
Tandem Diabetes appealed this decision to the Court of Appeal (UPC_CoA_120/2025). Subsequently, the parties informed the Court that they had concluded the proceedings by way of settlement. Both parties jointly requested the Court of Appeal to: (I) confirm that the parties had concluded the Settlement Agreement; (II) order that details of the settlement remain confidential; and (III) confirm that each party bears its own costs with no reimbursement between the parties.
The Court of Appeal, sitting as Panel 2 with presiding judge Rian Kalden and judges Ingeborg Simonsson, Patricia Rombach, Jeroen Meewisse, and Stefan Wilhelm, addressed the requests pursuant to Rule 365 of the Rules of Procedure. The Court noted that under R. 365 RoP, if requested by the parties, the Court shall confirm the settlement they have reached, and such a decision may be enforced as a final decision of the Court and shall be entered on the Register. The Court also noted that a R. 262.2 RoP request would be decided once a R. 262.1(b) RoP request is made by a member of the public, and that the Settlement Agreement contains confidential information.
In its order issued on 3 June 2025, the Court of Appeal: (I) confirmed pursuant to R. 365.1 RoP that the parties had concluded the Settlement Agreement; (II) terminated the appellate proceedings under UPC_CoA_120/2025 and APL_7604/2025; (III) confirmed that each party shall bear its own costs with no reimbursement between the parties; (IV) directed that the redacted version of the decision be entered on the register; and (V) declared the decision enforceable as a final decision of the Court of Appeal.
Practitioner Note
This case demonstrates the evidentiary and procedural standards applied in patent matters before Luxembourg (LU). Understanding the court's reasoning in Tandem Diabetes Care Europe B.V. and Tandem Diabetes Care, Inc. vs Roche Diabetes Care GmbH is valuable context for structuring arguments or assessing risk in similar proceedings.
Related Cases
Progress Maschinen & Automation AGvsAWM S.r.l. and Schnell S.p.A.
Progress Maschinen & Automation AG (PMA) sought ex parte orders to preserve evidence and inspect the premises of AWM S.r.l. and Schnell S.p.A. for alleged infringement of European Patent EP 2726230. After the orders were executed in October 2023, PMA failed to commence proceedings on the merits within the prescribed time limits and only requested access to the expert report in February 2024. The Local Division in Milan held the application for disclosure inadmissible, revoked the provisional measures, ordered restitution of the evidence, and awarded EUR 10,000 in legal fees against PMA.
STADAPHARM GmbHvsAccord Healthcare S.L.U., Accord Healthcare Limited, Novartis AG, Accord Healthcare B.V.
Stadapharm applied under Rule 262.1(b) RoP for access to written pleadings and evidence from a declaration of non-infringement proceeding between Accord and Novartis concerning EP 2 501 384. The Milan Local Division initially dismissed the request because the main proceedings were still pending and Stadapharm had not demonstrated sufficient interest. After Accord withdrew the main proceedings and Novartis withdrew its objection, the Court of Appeal reversed the impugned order and granted Stadapharm access to the statement of claim and exhibits TW01 to TW36, subject to redaction of personal data in accordance with EU Regulation 2016/679.
ALD France S.A.SvsNanoval GmbH & Co. KG
This case concerns a nullity action filed by ALD France S.A.S against Nanoval GmbH & Co. KG regarding EP 3 083 107 B1 before the Central Division Paris. Nanoval objected under Rule 19 RoP, arguing that ALD France was a 'straw man' for its parent company (ALD Vacuum Technologies GmbH), which was already a party in parallel infringement and nullity counterclaim proceedings before the Munich Local Division, rendering the action abusive and creating lis pendens. The court confirmed the order rejecting the objection, holding that ALD France's independent business activity made it a separate party from its parent, and that related companies are not 'the same party' under Art. 33(4) UPCA merely because of a parent-subsidiary relationship.
Prinoth S.p.A.vsXelom s.r.l.
Unified Patent Court decision.
Promosome LLCvsBioNTech SE et al.
In a patent infringement action concerning European patent EP 2 401 365 before the Local Division Munich, the Defendants (BioNTech and Pfizer entities) requested under Rule 190 RoP that the Claimant Promosome LLC produce the detailed materials, methods, and raw data underlying an expert report submitted in the proceedings. The Court rejected the request as inadmissible or, in any event, unfounded, finding that the Defendants had not yet disputed infringement, had not presented reasonably available evidence in support of their defences, and had failed to sufficiently specify the evidence requested and the facts they sought to prove.
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.