Roche Diabetes Care v Tandem Diabetes Care Europe (CFI, ACT_831/2025, 29 April 2025)

Dhenne Avocats · 10 October 2026

Our analysis

Summary

By order of 29 April 2025 (UPC_CFI_11/2025, ACT_831/2025, ORD_11186/2025), Judge Catallozzi, presiding judge and judge-rapporteur of the Paris Central Division, sitting alone, set at EUR 117,741.62 the costs that Tandem Diabetes Care, Inc. and Tandem Diabetes Care Europe B.V. must pay, jointly and severally, to Roche Diabetes Care within three weeks of service, following revocation action UPC_CFI_454/2023 concerning EP 2 196 231. The order refused to stay the costs proceedings pending the appeal on the merits and cut down the travel costs claimed for the party’s in-house representatives.

Question

Should the costs proceedings be stayed pending the appeal on the merits, and which travel costs of the party itself are recoverable?

Decision

A stay, available at the judge’s discretion under Rule 295(m) where the proper administration of justice so requires, was refused: a pending appeal is not enough, no risk of non-repayment was alleged and repayment would not be burdensome (paragraphs 3 to 8). The ambiguous application was read as claiming EUR 112,000 in representation costs, the ceiling for cases valued up to EUR 1,000,000 under the Administrative Committee decision of 24 April 2023, although actual costs were considerably higher. Being documented, necessary and not disproportionate, they were allowed (paragraphs 9 and 10). The lawyers’ travel costs were allowed in full (EUR 3,488.36), but only those of two of Roche’s four in-house representatives were accepted (paragraph 11). Court fees of EUR 300 were added (paragraphs 12 and 13).

Key points for practice

• Practical point: a party sending several in-house representatives to the hearing should expect only some of their travel costs to be reimbursed.

Provisions applied

Rules of Procedure

Rule 295(m) and Preamble, point 2

Other provisions

Administrative Committee decision of 24 April 2023 on the ceilings for recoverable representation costs

Case law cited

No UPC decision is cited.

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.