Tandem Diabetes Care v Roche Diabetes Care (CFI, ORD_9060/2024, 20 February 2024)

Dhenne Avocats · 10 October 2026

Our analysis

Summary

By an order of 20 February 2024 (UPC_CFI_454/2023), the judge-rapporteur of the Paris Central Division, in the revocation action against EP 2 196 231 brought by Tandem Diabetes Care, Inc. and Tandem Diabetes Care Europe B.V. against Roche Diabetes Care GmbH, rejected Roche’s request to extend the time limit for its Defence to revocation on the ground that a preliminary objection to jurisdiction was pending. The order confirms that extensions remain exceptional and that a preliminary objection does not, of itself, suspend the time limit for the Defence.

Question

Do a pending preliminary objection, the cost of possibly wasted pleadings and the risk of a stay of parallel proceedings justify extending the time limit for the Defence (Rule 9.3 RoP) or a decision otherwise under Rule 19.6 RoP?

Decision

The judge-rapporteur recalled that Rule 9 RoP confers a discretion to be exercised in line with proportionality, flexibility, fairness and equity (paragraphs 8 and 9), and that time limits serve speed, a fair trial and legal certainty (paragraphs 10 to 15). Extensions must be granted with caution and only in justified exceptional cases, the requesting party having to show that compliance is objectively impossible or very difficult (paragraphs 16 and 17). Roche alleged no such difficulty, only the risk of wasted pleadings should the objection succeed (paragraph 18), the risk of a stay of the non-infringement action was irrelevant (paragraph 19). Under Rule 19.6 RoP the time limit for the Defence runs despite the preliminary objection unless decided otherwise, which requires the same justification (paragraphs 20 to 23).

Key points for practice

• Practical point: a party raising a preliminary objection should prepare its Defence within the normal time limit unless it can show an objective difficulty in meeting it.

Provisions applied

Rules of Procedure

Rules 9.3, 9.4, 19.6, 23, 48, 76.3 and 333

Case law cited

ITCiCo Spain, Paris Central Division, 9 February 2024, Paris Central Division, order of 10 November 2023, UPC_CFI_255/2023

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.