Tandem Diabetes Care v Roche Diabetes Care (CFI, 10 May 2024)

Dhenne Avocats · 10 October 2026

Our analysis

Summary

By order of 10 May 2024 (UPC_CFI_454/2023, ACT_589997/2023, App_3514/2024), the judge-rapporteur of the Paris Central Division rejected the preliminary objection raised by the proprietor of EP 2 196 231 against the revocation action filed on 30 November 2023 (the published text omits the parties’ names, the case is registered as Tandem Diabetes Care v Roche Diabetes Care). The proprietor relied on a standstill clause requiring 90 days’ notice before any proceedings. A breach of such a clause does not affect the jurisdiction of the UPC.

Question

Is failure to observe the notice period in a standstill clause agreed between the parties a ground of lack of jurisdiction of the UPC that can be raised by preliminary objection (Rule 19.1(b) RoP)?

Decision

The judge first found that the clause, inserted on 5 December 2022 into a confidentiality agreement, covers any proceedings relating to an intellectual property dispute, not only proceedings based on confidential information (paragraphs 7 to 12). Since the right of access to a court is not absolute, a 90-day cooling-off period is a legitimate and proportionate restriction under Articles 47 and 48 of the Charter and Articles 6 and 13 ECHR (paragraphs 13 to 15). However, jurisdiction means a court’s abstract ability to hear a dispute. The clause concerns the conditions under which the claim may be heard, not that power (paragraphs 16 to 18). Holding otherwise would make jurisdiction temporary and dependent on which party sues, whereas it must rest on objective criteria (paragraphs 19 and 20), the national case law relied on treats such a breach as a ground of inadmissibility (paragraph 21). The remaining arguments are deferred until after the written procedure (paragraphs 23 and 24).

Key points for practice

• Practical point: a standstill clause is not to be argued through a preliminary objection on jurisdiction, a party wishing to rely on it must do so when admissibility or the merits are examined.

Provisions applied

Rules of Procedure

Rules 19.1(b), 43 and 48

Related decisions

• Tandem Diabetes Care Europe v Roche Diabetes Care, 18 December 2024, decision on the merits of the revocation action.

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.