UPC_CoA_120/2025_July03_Fees – Tandem v Roche
- Court
- Court of Appeal
- Date
- Outcome
- Granted
- Sector
- Other
- Decision Type
- PROCEDURAL
Expert Commentary
Return of fees Background Tandem failed to have Roche's patent revoked. Parties settled the case during the appeal proceedings. On 3 June 2025, the Court of Appeal confirmed the settlement. On 24 June 2025, Tandem requested reimbursement of 60% of the appeal fee. The JR As the case was settled before the end of the written procedure, a 60% refund was ordered (See R. 370.9(c)(1) RoP). Comment 1. As the Court should in principle be self-financing, the Budget Committee is studying this payback scheme. 2. As I have written before, this reimbursement Rule was never discussed in the Committee which drafted the Rules, and many member states do not have such a payback scheme. I am a strong advocate for its abolishment. If you want to use the Court (to win or reach a settlement), you know what you have to pay. If that is too much, then do not start proceedings. 3. Even after abolishment of this return of fees, it is expected that the UPC will only be self-supporting for 50%. 4. A good and competent court (such as the UPC) indirectly stimulates innovation, which is in the interest of us all, as it is a driving force for our economy. More economic activity means more jobs and more tax income. No national court is self-financing. So the fact that the member states would have to pay 50% of the costs is not unreasonable, certainly not in the light of the benefits for the economy of a good functioning patent court.
Full Decision Text
1 ORDER of the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court issued on 3 July 2025 concerning reimbursement of Court fees 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 Konstantin Schallmoser, Bonabry, Paris, France 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 JUDGE Panel 2 Ingeborg Simonsson, legally qualified judge and judge-rapporteur 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 UPC Court of Appeal UPC_CoA_120/2025 APL_7604/2025 App_30138/2025 2 F ACTS AND PARTY REQUEST 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. On 3 June 2025, at the request of the parties, the Court of Appeal confirmed the settlement pursuant to R. 365.1 RoP. 4. On 24 June 2025, Tandem Diabetes lodged an application for reimbursement of 60% of the Court fees it paid for the appeal. G ROUNDS FOR THE ORDER 5. If the parties have concluded their action by way of settlement, the party liable for the Court fees will upon request receive a refund of 60% in accordance with R.370.9(c)(i) RoP and R. 370.11 RoP if the action is settled before the closure of the written procedure. 6. The written procedure had not been closed at the time when the action was settled. Accordingly, Tandem Diabetes is entitled to a reimbursement of 60% of the Court fees it paid for the appeal pursuant to R. 370.9(c)(i) RoP. O RDER The Court of Appeal orders that 60% of the appeal Court fees be reimbursed to Tandem Diabetes. Issued on 3 July 2025 Ingeborg Simonsson, legally qualified judge and judge-rapporteur
Key Holdings
- 60% reimbursement of appeal fee granted (R. 370.9(c)(1) RoP).
- Settlement occurred before end of written procedure.
Tags
- Appeal
- Costs
- Court Fees
- Settlement