F. Hoffmann-La Roche v Tandem Diabetes Care (CFI, 30 June 2025)

Dhenne Avocats · 10 October 2026

Our analysis

Summary

By order of 30 June 2025, the Düsseldorf Local Division (Thomas, Schumacher, Kokke, Schober) dismissed the three applications for partial refund of court fees filed by F. Hoffmann-La Roche and Roche Diabetes Care and by the defendants (Tandem Diabetes Care, VitalAire, Dinno Santé, Air Liquide Healthcare Nederland, Rubin Medical) following the settlements reached in the infringement action on EP 1 970 677 and the counterclaims for revocation (UPC_CFI_504/2023). As the settlements came after the oral hearing of 9 April 2025, no refund was due.

Question

Does a settlement reached after the oral hearing but before the decision is pronounced give rise to the 20% refund of court fees under Rule 370.9(c)?

Decision

No (paragraph 9). The sliding scale in Rule 370.9(c) reflects the workload the court is spared (paragraphs 10 and 11). The oral procedure closes at the end of the oral hearing, as Rules 111(b) and 118.6 show, the decision being given after that point (paragraphs 12 to 14). In the alternative, Rule 370.9(e) would not allow a refund either: the three successive settlements, each with separate confidentiality orders under Rule 262A, increased rather than reduced the division’s work (paragraph 15).

Key points for practice

• Practical point: to secure a partial refund of court fees, a settlement must be notified before the end of the oral hearing, thereafter a refund is in principle excluded, however long the court takes to pronounce.

Provisions applied

Agreement on a Unified Patent Court

Art. 36(3)

Rules of Procedure

Rules 111(b), 118.6, 262A, 365.1 and 370.9 to 370.11

Case law cited

Scandit v Hand Held, 18 April 2025 (Court of Appeal), MED-EL v Advanced Bionics, 28 May 2025 (Mannheim Local Division)

Prepared by Dhenne Avocats from the official decision, consulted on 10 October 2026. The database is updated every week, on Friday. Only the official text is authoritative.