2024-12-18 - CD Paris - Tandem Diabetes v. Roche - UPC_CFI_454/2023
- Aktenzeichen:
- UPC_CFI_454/2023
- Datum:
- Spruchkörper:
- Court of First Instance - Paris (FR) Central Division - Seat
- Art:
- Proceeding Decision
- Parteien:
- Tandem Diabetes Care v. Roche Diabetes Care
Kernaussage: The breach of a standstill clause does not divest the breaching party of the right to bring an action where the temporal restriction on the right to sue is not justified by any public interest, but it may only give rise to liability for breach of contract.
2024-12-18 - CD Paris - Tandem Diabetes
v.
Roche - UPC_CFI_454/2023
The breach of a standstill clause does not divest the breaching party of the right to bring an action where the temporal restriction on the right to sue is not justified by any public interest, but it may only give rise to liability for breach of contract.
The Paris Central Division dismissed the revocation action and upheld the patent as granted. The Court stated that the grounds for invalidity raised by the claimant against the patent at issue were not well founded. The Court further touched on its competence following a "standstill clause", stating that this was only a matter of contractual liability.
Stichwörter
competence of the Court.
Nichtigkeitsgründe
Art. 138 EPCNovelty
Patent survived (this ground)Art. 54 EPC · Art. 138(1)(a) EPC
“Claim 1 is novel over Glejboel (WO 2007/077255) [57-63]. Feature 1.3iii is not disclosed: the dosing spring 5 and dosing wheel 6 leave no space for the collapsible reservoir 7/304/401 to reach a support structure upon expansion — so the expansion is not limited by any support structure.”
Inventive Step
Patent survived (this ground)Art. 56 EPC · Art. 138(1)(a) EPC
“Claim 1 is inventive over (a) Diaz + Robertson and (b) Glejboel + Diaz/Robertson [64-84]. Feature 1.3iii is also missing from Diaz: Fig. 11A shows an empty gap between reservoir 24 and rigid structure 20/26 whose protective function would be jeopardised if the reservoir could expand against the casing; 'flexible' does not imply 'expandable'. Robertson concerns a pill box and provides no cross-read.”
Added Matter
Patent survived (this ground)Art. 123(2) EPC · Art. 138(1)(c) EPC
“Feature 1.5 ('partly rigid container body with a top or cover made from a flexible foil sheet') is not an impermissible intermediate generalisation [46-56]. The 'tank-like' language in para. [0003] of the application is introduced by 'for example' as a separate optional feature; its omission from the claim does not violate Art. 123(2) EPC because it is not technically linked to the flexible foil cover.”