2024-05-10 - CD Paris - Tandem Diabetes v. Roche - UPC_CFI_454/2023

Was ist diese UPC-Entscheidung?

Zusammenfassung: The Paris Central Division (Panel 2) dismissed a Rule 19(1)(b) preliminary objection by which a revocation defendant sought to strip the UPC of jurisdiction on the basis that the claimant had filed its revocation action in breach of a 90-day standstill clause contained in a Confidential Disclosure Agreement. The Court held, as a matter of principle, that violation of a contractual standstill clause does not constitute a ground for challenging the jurisdiction of the UPC. Jurisdiction, defined as the objective power of a specific court to hear a dispute, is not defeated by the private conduct of the parties; at most, such a violation might bear on admissibility. The Court also held that contractual standstill clauses are not per se incompatible with the right to access to justice under Art. 47 CFREU and Art. 6 ECHR — these rights are not absolute and may be restricted where the restriction has a legitimate purpose (here, out-of-court settlement), is proportionate (90-day cooling-off) and does not undermine the essence of the right (CJEU Alassini, C-317/08). On clause interpretation, the obligation to give prior written notice covers any 'proceeding arising from or relating to a dispute over intellectual property' — not only proceedings using the other party's confidential information. Remaining arguments on the start date and calculation of the 90-day period were deferred to after the R. 43 RoP written pleadings.

Stichwörter: standstill agreement, jurisdiction

Quelle und Fundstellen

Quelle: https://www.unified-patent-court.org/en/node/703

Referenz: ORD_7903/2024

Aktenzeichen: UPC_CFI_454/2023