Tandem Diabetes Care, Inc., Tandem Diabetes Care Europe B.V., v. Respondent

UPC-001283

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

Jurisdiction
European UPC
Court
Hamburg (DE) Local Division
Case Number
UPC-001283
Judge(s)
and Judge Rapporteur Sabine Klepsch Legally qualified judge Dr; Giorgio Checcacci Language of Proceedings

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

patentUPC-000393

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.

patentUPC-001671

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.

patentUPC-001393

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.

patentUPC-001384

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

patentUPC-001369

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.

Arctic Invent — IP Strategy

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.

Talk to our patent team →

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.

Strategy Consult

Facing a similar patent matter?

Arctic's litigation team uses precedent data like this to build winning arguments.

Get a Strategy Call