Short Summary
1 Hamburg – Local Division UPC_CFI_88/2024 Preliminary Order of the Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court Issued: 09/09/2024 PARTIES: Roche Diabetes Care GmbH, represented by Herrn Götzl, Sandhofer Straße 116, 68305 Mannheim, Germany, Plaintiff and Counterdefendant 1
Detailed Summary
1
Hamburg – Local Division
UPC_CFI_88/2024
Preliminary Order
of the Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court
Issued: 09/09/2024
PARTIES:
Roche Diabetes Care GmbH, represented by Herrn Götzl, Sandhofer Straße 116, 68305 Mannheim,
Germany,
Plaintiff and Counterdefendant 1)
represented by:
Kather Augenstein Rechtsanwälte PartGmbB, Dr. Christof
Augenstein, Sophie Prudent, LL.M., Dr. Katharina Brandt,
Rechtsanwalt Knaps, Bahnstraße 16, 40212 Düsseldorf
augenstein@katheraugenstein.com
prudent@katheraugenstein.com
brandt@katheraugenstein.com knaps@katheraugenstein.com
F. Hoffmann-La Roche AG, Grenzacherstraße 124, 4058 Basel, Switzerland,
Counterdefendant 2)
represented by:
Kather Augenstein Rechtsanwälte PartGmbB, Dr. Christof
Augenstein, Sophie Prudent, LL.M., Dr. Katharina Brandt,
Rechtsanwalt Knaps, Bahnstraße 16, 40212 Düsseldorf
augenstein@katheraugenstein.com
prudent@katheraugenstein.com
brandt@katheraugenstein.com knaps@katheraugenstein.com
and
1.
Tandem Diabetes Care, Inc., represented by its legal representative, 12400 High Bluff
Drive, CA 92130, San Diego, United States of America,
Defendant 1)
2
2.
Tandem Diabetes Care Europe B.V., .represented by its legal representative, Schiphol Boulevard
359, WTC Schiphol Airport, D-Tower 11th floor, 1118 BJ, Schiphol, Netherland,
Defendant 2)
3.
VitalAire GmbH, represented by its legal representative, von Bornbarch 2, 22848 Norderstedt,
Deutschland
Defendant 3) and Counterclaimant
Defendant 1) und 2) represented by: Taylor Wessing N.V., Charlotte Garnitsch (111867/2023), Dr. Wim
Maas (112021/2023), Iris van der Heijdt, Pauline Springorum,
Kennedyplein 201, 5611 ZT Eindhoven, NL,
c.garnitsch@taylorwessing.com
w.maas@taylorwessing.com
Defendant 3) represented by:
Hoyng Rokh Monegier, Dr. Christine Kanz, Steinstraße 20,
40212 Düsseldorf,
christine.kanz@hoyngrokh.com
Patent at issue
Patent no.
Proprietor
EP2196231
Roche Diabetes Care GmbH, F.Hoffmann-La Roche AG
Deciding Judges:
This order is issued by
Presiding Judge and Judge Rapporteur Sabine Klepsch
Legally qualified judge Dr. Stefan Schilling
Legally qualified Judge Dr. Tatyana Zhilova
Technically qualified Judge Giorgio Checcacci
Language of Proceedings:
English
Subject-Matter of the Proceedings:
Patent infringement
Request to stay proceedings
Statement of the forms of order sought by the parties:
The requesting parties, defendants 1) and 2), with the consent of the defendant 3), are
requesting:
3
I.
to stay the infringement action with Ref. 10800/2024 (the ‘Infringement Action’)
pursuant to Rules 295(f) and (m), 75 and 37(4) of the Rules of Procedure and Articles
33(5) and 33(3)(b) UPCA
II.
in the meantime, based on Rule 295(m) in conjunction with Rule 9 of the Rules of
Procedure to stay the infringement proceedings until the court has ruled on Request I.
The respondent, claimant, is requesting:
1.
Dismissal of the defendants‘ application for stay of the present proceedings,
2.
to decide, pursuant to Rule 37.2 of the Rules of Procedure, to hear the proceedings
under Art. 33(3) UPCA together before the Local Division Hamburg.
of Facts:
The Claimant alleges infringement of European Patent 2 196 231 by the defendants‘ t:slim X2
insulin pump with the interchangeable t:slim X2 reservoir (attacked embodiment). Defendant 1) is
a US manufacturer of medical devices based in San Diego, California. The company develops
medical technologies for the treatment of diabetes and in particular for insulin infusion therapy.
Its products include insulin pumps, such as the t:slim X2 insulin pump. Defendant 2) is the
importer and operates the Dutch distribution centre of Defendant 1) for Europe. Defendant 3) is a
German healthcare company with its headquarters in Norderstedt. It offers holistic solutions and
concepts for home therapy. In particular, it distributes insulin therapy produ
Practitioner Note
This case demonstrates the evidentiary and procedural standards applied in patent matters before Hamburg (DE) Local Division. Understanding the court's reasoning in Tandem Diabetes Care, Inc., Tandem Diabetes Care Europe B.V., vs Respondent is valuable context for structuring arguments or assessing risk in similar proceedings.
Related Cases
KNAPP Smart Solutions GmbHvsRespondent
This procedural order concerns a deadline extension request in a patent infringement and revocation dispute involving European Patent EP 2 133 289. Due to irregularities in the CMS, the filing dates of the defendant's reply and counterclaim for revocation were inconsistent, creating uncertainty about the applicable deadlines. The plaintiff requested a six-day extension to September 9, 2025, which the defendant agreed to, but the court only partially granted the request, extending the deadline to September 5, 2025, to avoid subsequent deadlines falling on a weekend.
Seoul Viosys Co., Ltd.vsExpert e-Commerce GmbH u. a.
In this legal proceeding before Düsseldorf (DE) Local Division (decision issued on 2023-12-04) under reference UPC-001671, Seoul Viosys Co., Ltd. appeared in dispute with Expert e-Commerce GmbH u. a. concerning patent rights and legal remedies.
Seoul Viosys Co., Ltd.vsRespondent
This procedural order concerns a request by the Korean plaintiff, Seoul Viosys Co., Ltd., for court-provided simultaneous interpretation of the oral hearing scheduled for September 5, 2024, in proceedings concerning European Patent EP 3 926 698 B1. The plaintiff, represented by German counsel, had filed the infringement action in German as the procedural language. The court addressed whether the court itself must provide interpretation services or whether the party must arrange and bear the cost of its own interpreter.
Oerlikon Textile GmbH & CO KGvsHimson Engineering Private Limited
1 Milan - Local Division UPC_CFI_240/2023 Procedural Order of the Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court delivered on 23/07/2024 Order no. ORD_40568/2024 APPLICANT 1) Oerlikon Textile GmbH & CO KG (Applicant) - Leverkuser Strasse 65 - 42897 - Remscheid - DE Represent
NEC CorporationvsTCL Industrial Holdings Co., Ltd., TCL Communication Technology Holdings Ltd., TCL Overseas Marketing Ltd.
NEC Corporation appealed orders of the Munich Local Division that denied its requests for alternative service of Statements of claim on three Asian TCL defendants domiciled in China and Hong Kong. The Court of Appeal held that service by email to a person not authorized to accept service, and public service by written notice displayed at the court's premises, were not permissible at this stage of the proceedings. The appeal was rejected, with the Court confirming that Hague Convention service attempts should normally be made before alternative methods of service can be employed.
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.