Tandem Diabetes Care v Roche Diabetes Care (CFI, ORD_9062/2024, 20 February 2024)

Dhenne Avocats · 10 October 2026

Our analysis

Summary

By order of 20 February 2024 (UPC_CFI_455/2023), Paolo Catallozzi, judge-rapporteur of the Paris Central Division, hearing the action for a declaration of non-infringement of EP 2 196 231 brought on 30 November 2023 by Tandem Diabetes Care, Inc. and Tandem Diabetes Care Europe B.V. against Roche Diabetes Care GmbH, refused Roche’s request to extend the time limit for its Defence to 8 April 2024 or, in the alternative, 18 March 2024. The preliminary objection to jurisdiction lodged by Roche on 22 January 2024 does not suspend that time limit.

Question

Do a pending preliminary objection, the cost of pleadings that may prove unnecessary and the prospect of an infringement action leading to a stay (Rule 76.3) justify an extension under Rule 9.3 or a contrary decision under Rule 19.6?

Decision

No. Rule 9.3 confers a discretion to be exercised in line with proportionality, flexibility, fairness and equity (paragraphs 8 and 9), extensions are exceptional and require that compliance be objectively impossible or very difficult (paragraphs 16 and 17). Roche relied only on the possibility that its pleadings might prove useless (paragraph 18), the risk of a stay is irrelevant (paragraph 19). Rule 19.6, applicable through Rule 66, keeps the time limit for the Defence running despite the preliminary objection, unless the judge-rapporteur decides otherwise under the same requirements (paragraphs 20 to 23). The alleged need for clarity in relation to the parallel revocation action was not explained (paragraph 24).

Key points for practice

• Practical point: a party raising a preliminary objection must prepare its Defence within the normal time limit unless it shows an objective difficulty in meeting it (paragraphs 17 and 23).

Provisions applied

Rules of Procedure

Rules 9.3, 9.4, 19.6, 23, 66, 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

Related decisions

• Tandem v Roche, 20 February 2024, parallel order in the revocation action (UPC_CFI_454/2023).

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.