UPC CoA 120/2025, APL 7604/2025, App 24387/2025, App 24411/2025, App 24847/2025 – Tandem Diabetes Care Europe B.V., Tandem Diabetes Care, Inc. v Roche Diabetes Care GmbH
- Court
- Court of Appeal
- Date
- Outcome
- Settlement confirmed, proceedings terminated
- Sector
- Pharma/Bio
- Decision Type
- Order confirming settlement
Expert Commentary
Full Decision Text
1 ORDER of the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court issued on 3 June 2025 concerning a confirmation of a settlement APPELLANTS ( AND CLAIMANTS BEFORE THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE ) 1. Tandem Diabetes Care Europe B.V., Schiphol Boulevard 359, WTC Schiphol Airport, D-Tower 11th floor, 1118 BJ, Schiphol, The Netherlands 2. Tandem Diabetes Care, Inc., 12400 High Bluff Drive, CA 92130, San Diego, USA (hereinafter jointly referred to as ‘Tandem Diabetes ‘) both represented by attorney-at-law Christian Dekoninck, Taylor Wessing, Brussels, Belgium, and other representatives from that firm as well as from AOMB, Eindhoven, The Netherlands R ESPONDENT ( AND D EFENDANT BEFORE THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE ) Roche Diabetes Care GmbH, Sandhofer Strasse 116, 68305, Mannheim, Germany (hereinafter ‘Roche Diabetes ‘) represented by attorney-at-law Dr. Christof Augenstein, Kather Augenstein, Düsseldorf, Germany, and other representatives from that firm as well as from Grünecker Patent- und Rechtsanwälte, Munich, Germany P ATENT AT ISSUE EP 2 196 231 P ANEL AND D ECIDING JUDGES Panel 2 Rian Kalden, presiding judge and legally qualified judge Ingeborg Simonsson, legally qualified judge and judge-rapporteur Patricia Rombach, legally qualified judge Jeroen Meewisse, technically qualified judge Stefan Wilhelm, technically qualified judge UPC Court of Appeal UPC CoA 120/2025 APL 7604/2025 App 24387/2025 App 24411/2025 App 24847/2025 2 IMPUGNED D ECISION OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE Central Division Paris, 18 December 2024, revocation action ACT 589997/2023, UPC CFI 454/2023 L ANGUAGE OF THE CASE English SUMMARY OF FACTS 1. Tandem Diabetes lodged an action for revocation of the patent at issue, relating to a system for ambulatory drug infusion, against Roche Diabetes before the Central Division Paris. 2. In the impugned decision, the Central Division dismissed the revocation action, maintained the patent at issue as granted and ordered that the costs of the proceedings should be borne by Tandem Diabetes. 3. Tandem Diabetes appealed. The parties then informed the Court that they had concluded the proceedings by way of settlement. REQUESTS OF THE PARTIES 4. Both parties request that the Court of Appeal I. confirm that the parties have concluded the Settlement Agreement according to Annex BBY 1; II. order that details of the settlement are confidential; III. confirm that each party bears its own costs and that no costs shall be reimbursed between the parties. R EASONS 5. According to R. 365 RoP, if requested by the parties, the Court shall confirm the settlement that they have reached. Such decision may be enforced as a final decision of the Court and shall be entered on the Register. 6. The R. 262.2 RoP request will be decided once a R. 262.1(b) RoP request is made by a member of the public. 7. The Settlement Agreement contains confidential information. O RDER I. At the request of the parties the Court of Appeal confirms, pursuant to R. 365.1 RoP, that the parties have concluded the following Settlement Agreement : 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 II. This settlement terminates the proceedings before the Court of Appeal pending under UPC CoA 120/2025, APL 7604/2025. III. The Court of Appeal confirms that each party shall bear its own costs and that no costs shall be reimbursed between the parties. IV. This decision in the redacted version shall be entered on the register; V. This decision is enforceable as a final decision of the Court of Appeal. Issued on 3 June 2025 Rian Kalden, presiding judge and legally qualified judge Ingeborg Simonsson, legally qualified judge and judge-rapporteur Patricia Rombach, legally qualified judge Jeroen Meewisse, technically qualified judge Stefan Wilhelm, technically qualified judge For the Registry
Key Holdings
- The Court of Appeal confirms, pursuant to R. 365.1 RoP, that the parties have concluded a Settlement Agreement.
- This settlement terminates the proceedings before the Court of Appeal.
- Each party shall bear its own costs, and no costs shall be reimbursed between the parties.
- The decision in the redacted version shall be entered on the register.
- This decision is enforceable as a final decision of the Court of Appeal.
Tags
- Appeal
- Confidentiality
- Costs
- Revocation
- Settlement
- Unified Patent Court