REGISTER now: Visser ai webinar - BEYOND THE HYPE: AI IN PATENT PROSECUTION
​

Breach of a standstill agreement does not affect jurisdiction or admissibility

​
Darren Smyth
​
January 22, 2025
Additional information
Chevron icon
Info
Tags
UPC
Table of contents
Chevron icon
Table of contents
  • Toc Heading
  • Toc Heading

Tandem Diabetes Care, Inc., Tandem Diabetes Care Europe B.V. v Roche Diabetes Care GmbH UPC_CFI_454/2023

Decision of 18 December 2024 (ORD_598508/2023[1])

The claimants sought revocation of EP 2196231, belonging to the defendant, before the UPC Central Division in Paris.

The patentee raised a preliminary objection to the action. It argued that according to a standstill agreement between the parties, a party has to inform the other party of the intention to file a lawsuit 90 days before the lawsuit is filed. Alleging this requirement not to have been met, the patentee argued that the Courts had no jurisdiction. This was rejected by the judge rapporteur.[2] The patentee continued to raise the issue in the main proceedings.

The Court considered that any breach of a standstill agreement does not deprive the Court of jurisdiction, nor does it render an action inadmissible. It can only give rise to liability for breach of contract.

Accordingly, the Court went on to consider the merits of the case. It found that none of the grounds of invalidity were well founded and therefore ordered the patent to be maintained as granted. Costs were awarded against the claimants.

[1] https://www.unified-patent-court.org/en/node/1347

[2] Reported here https://eip.com/global/latest/article/upc_rules_it_has_jurisdiction_in_cases_where_a_claim_is_brought_in_violation_of_a_contract/

Recent Case Reports

See all Case Reports

Invalidity of juicer patent upheld on appeal
03 November 2026
The Court of Appeal upheld the invalidity of Hurom’s juicer patent for lack of inventive step, while clarifying the admissibility requirements for patent amendments and the use of the unamended description when construing amended claims. It also confirmed the UPC’s jurisdiction over infringement in Poland despite Poland not being a UPCA Contracting Member State, but found that Hurom had failed to establish infringement under Polish law.
​
Evidence preservation doesn’t stretch to interrogation
03 November 2026
The Court of Appeal confirmed that evidence-preservation orders may be granted ex parte where there is a demonstrable risk that evidence could be destroyed or become unavailable, and that such orders may extend to relevant commercial and promotional documents. However, Art. 60 UPCA does not permit a bailiff or expert to question the defendant’s personnel on substantive technical matters, which must instead be handled under the Court’s control.
​
UPC Court of Appeal clarifies claim construction, the role of party experts, and provisional measures in direct-competition cases
03 November 2026
The CoA’s decision of 30 April 2025 in Insulet v EOFlow provides important guidance on claim construction, the role of party-appointed experts and the requirements for provisional injunctions.
​