Tandem Diabetes Care v Roche Diabetes Care (CFI, 27 June 2024)

Date	27 June 2024
Court	CFI
Division	Paris (FR) Central Division - Seat
Type of action	Generic application
Registry reference	App_37868/2024 · ORD_38198/2024
Parties	Roche Diabetes Care GmbH

Official decision (PDF) · UPC registry entry

Dhenne Avocats represents claimants and defendants in European patent disputes before the Unified Patent Court, including the Paris divisions.

Contact the firm

Dhenne Avocats · 10 October 2026

Our analysis

Summary

By an order of 27 June 2024 (UPC_CFI_454/2023, ACT_589997/2023, ORD_38198/2024, App_37868/2024), the judge-rapporteur of panel 2 of the Paris Central Division (P. Catallozzi), in the revocation action on EP 2 196 231 brought by Tandem Diabetes Care, Inc. and Tandem Diabetes Care Europe B.V., rejected Roche Diabetes Care GmbH’s request to extend the time for its Rejoinder to 29 July 2024. The order restates the high threshold for an extension.

Question

Do new prior art documents filed with the Reply and the Defence to the application to amend, or a counterclaim for revocation pending before the Hamburg Local Division, justify an extension under Rule 9 RoP?

Decision

An extension, governed by proportionality, flexibility and fairness (paragraph 5), is reserved for justified exceptional cases and requires that meeting the time limit was objectively impossible or very difficult (paragraphs 6 to 8). Filing new prior art with the Defence to the application to amend is expressly allowed and was foreseeable (paragraph 10), the new arguments in the Reply are no impediment either (paragraph 11). The proceedings pending before the Hamburg Local Division are separate and autonomous: the Central Division need not wait for them or coordinate with them (paragraphs 12 and 13).

Key points for practice

Practical point: an extension requires showing objective impossibility or serious difficulty, the other side’s foreseeable response, even with new prior art, is not enough.

Provisions applied

Rules of Procedure: Rule 9 and recitals 2 and 4 of the Preamble
Case law cited: Tandem Diabetes Care v Roche Diabetes Care, Paris Central Division, 20 February 2024

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.

Going further

Lexicon: Written procedure (UPC), Court fees and costs (UPC).

Source and translations

Official source: Unified Patent Court registry link recorded in the record
Original language: not recorded
Translation available: no translation recorded the firm’s French record is a summary, not a translation
Date checked: not recorded

Only the official text is authoritative. A machine translation is never presented as official, republishing a third-party document requires a verified basis in rights, and a link to the source is preferred.

Follow this case

Proceedings, related decisions, appeals, parties and patents as recorded in the registry and in the Dhenne Avocats corpus. Each link states its source.

Proceedings

No case number recorded in this record.

Parties

claimantRoche Diabetes Care GmbH14 decisions in the corpus Follow this party

Exact name as it appears in the record, group affiliation only where sourced and dated.

Decisions in the same proceedings and documented appeals

No other decision in the corpus bears the same case number, and no appeal is documented in the corpus to date.

What the record states

Nature of the act: Generic application
Outcome (Dhenne Avocats summary): La demande de prorogation du délai de duplique est rejetée, faute d'impossibilité objective ou de difficulté sérieuse à respecter le délai.
Appeal: No appeal documented in the corpus, this does not mean that no appeal was lodged.
Instance: First-instance decision, whether it has become final is not recorded.

Patents mentioned

EP 2 196 231 mentioned in: Dhenne Avocats analysis Follow this patent

Related decisions cited in the analyses

Tandem Diabetes Care v Roche Diabetes Care (CFI, ORD_9060/2024, 20 February 2024) cited in this record
Edwards Lifesciences v Meril Life Sciences (CFI, 8 October 2024) cites this decision

Scope: Dhenne Avocats corpus. Registry-based links are marked “official number”; links derived from the analyses are marked as such. An erroneous link can be withdrawn without deleting any record.

Patents and standards

Publication	Role in the dispute	Family	Standard and declaration	Pool	Sources
`EP 2 196 231` System for ambulatory drug infusion comprising a filling apparatus for flexible containers recorded proprietor: F Hoffmann La Roche AG et Roche Diagnostics GmbH	Mentioned in the analysis (role not qualified) Also mentioned in 9 other decision(s): Tandem Diabetes Care Europe v Roche Diabetes Care (CFI, 18 December 20 · Tandem Diabetes Care Europe v Roche Diabetes Care (CoA, 3 July 2025) · Tandem Diabetes Care Europe v Roche Diabetes Care (CoA, 5 June 2025) · Roche Diabetes Care v Tandem Diabetes Care (CFI, 9 September 2024) · Roche Diabetes Care v Tandem Diabetes Care (CFI, 26 July 2024) · Tandem Diabetes Care v Roche Diabetes Care (CFI, 10 May 2024) · Tandem Diabetes Care v Roche Diabetes Care (CFI, ORD_9062/2024, 20 Feb · Tandem Diabetes Care v Roche Diabetes Care (CFI, ORD_9060/2024, 20 Feb	not recorded	not recorded	not recorded	Espacenet · European Patent Register existence and title of the publication checked on 30 October 2026 (Google Patents, Espacenet and Register links are not checked automatically) mentioned in: Dhenne Avocats analysis

The statuses “asserted in litigation”, “declared essential”, “listed by a pool” and “essentiality examined by a court” are distinct and may coexist. Validity, infringement and technical essentiality are different questions. Scope: patents cited in the decisions of the Dhenne Avocats corpus, with no essentiality score or prediction.

Receive an alert

Weekly summary of new records and substantive updates matching what you follow. Address confirmed by email, unsubscribe at any time, one email per week even where several of your follows match.