UPC CFI 454/2023
30. Nov. 2023·EP2196231 · System for ambulatory drug infusion comprising a filling apparatus for flexible containers
Hauptaktenzeichen: ACT 589997/2023
- Verfahrensdetails
- StatusCase Closed (Patent wie erteilt aufrechterhalten)VerfahrensartNichtigkeitKategorieHauptnichtigkeitsklage
- Parteien
- Kläger
- Tandem Diabetes Care, Inc.Unternehmen
- Tandem Diabetes Care Europe B.V.Unternehmen
Vertreter- Christian Dekoninck-Taylor Wessing
- Charlotte Garnitsch-Taylor Wessing
- Wim Maas-Taylor Wessing
- Alexander Rubusch-Taylor Wessing
- George Seezink-AOMB
- Pauline Springorum-Taylor Wessing
Beklagte- Roche Diabetes Care GmbHUnternehmen
Vertreter- Christof Augenstein-Kather Augenstein
- Katharina Brandt-Kather Augenstein
- Thomas Kronberger-Grünecker Patent- und Rechtsanwälte PartGmbH
- Robert Knaps-Kather Augenstein
- Division
- Paris CD
- Technologie
- InstrumentsMedical technology
- Sprache
- English
- Erste Entscheidung
- 20. Feb. 2024
- Letzte Entscheidung
- 18. Dez. 2024
| Patent nichtig | Median Tage bis zur ersten Entscheidung | |
|---|---|---|
| Gesamt-UPC | 37% (34/91) | 124 |
| Paris CD | Gesperrt | Gesperrt |
| Richter Paolo Catallozzi | Gesperrt | Gesperrt |
| Richter Tatyana Zhilova | Gesperrt | Gesperrt |
| Richter Giorgio Checcacci | Gesperrt | Gesperrt |
Vor dem UPC: Tandem Diabetes Care Group (18 Verfahren)·Roche Group (29 Verfahren)
Dieser Streit umfasst 9 weitere Verfahren
UPC CoA 120/2025·UPC CFI 11/2025·UPC CFI 88/2024·UPC CFI 455/2023·UPC APP 3514/2024 und 4 weitere
1 weitere Beklagte zum selben oder einem verwandten Patent
Starten Sie die kostenlose Testphase, um die Ausgänge zu sehen.
- 2024-12-18Revocation ActionÖffentlich
Zusammenfassung: The Paris Central Division dismissed Tandem Diabetes Care's revocation action against Roche's EP 2 196 231 B1 (ambulatory drug infusion system), maintaining the patent as granted and ordering the claimants to bear the costs of proceedings, finding the grounds for invalidity (including lack of inventive step over prior art Diaz/Robertson/Glejboel) were not proven.
Rechtsfragen anzeigen (3)
- revocation action lack of inventive step
- standstill clause breach as admissibility issue
- ambulatory drug infusion patent validity
- —revocation
Zusammenfassung: a) dismisses the revocation action filed by [redacted] and against [redacted] b) maintains the European patent EP n° 2 196 231 B1 as granted; c) orders that the costs of the proceedings shall be borne by the claimants.
| Dokumenttitel | Datum | Öffentlich |
|---|---|---|
| Final order anonymized - 18.02.2025 | 2025-02-19 | Nicht öffentlich |
| Outcome of the Order | 2025-02-18 | Nicht öffentlich |
| rule 353 | 2025-02-18 | Öffentlich |
| rule 353 | 2025-02-18 | Nicht öffentlich |
| Acknowledgement-of-change-of-a-representative | 2025-02-14 | Nicht öffentlich |
| Acknowledgement-of-change-of-a-representative | 2025-02-14 | Nicht öffentlich |
| Comments on Rectification Merits Decision | 2025-01-30 | Nicht öffentlich |
| Comments on Rectification Merits Decision | 2025-01-30 | Nicht öffentlich |
| preliminary order | 2025-01-23 | Nicht öffentlich |
| preliminary order | 2025-01-23 | Nicht öffentlich |
Tandem Diabetes Care sought revocation of Roche's EP 2 196 231 (ambulatory drug infusion system with filling apparatus for flexible containers). The Paris Central Division rejected all invalidity attacks, finding that neither Diaz nor Robertson (alone or in combination), nor Glejboel combined with those references, disclosed the key feature requiring the support structure to limit container expansion (feature 1.3iii). The court also held that breach of a standstill agreement does not bar proceedings but may give rise to contractual liability, and maintained the patent as granted.
Breach of a standstill clause does not deprive the breaching party of the right to sue, but may give rise to contractual liability
KlägerHinweis: The Paris Central Division rejected any jurisdictional/admissibility challenge based on breach of a standstill clause, holding such breaches do not divest the party of the right to bring an action.
Claim 1 feature 1.3iii (support structure limiting expansion of flexible container) is not disclosed by 'Diaz'
BeklagterRechtsgrundlage: Art. 56 EPCHinweis: The court found that Diaz's reservoir casing performs a protective function and the gap shown in figures is intended to remain even when filled, so the limitation feature is not disclosed.
Robertson (container for solid medicaments/pills) is not a relevant combination with Diaz (liquid drug delivery)
BeklagterRechtsgrundlage: Art. 56 EPCHinweis: The court found the skilled person would be unlikely to consult Robertson (a box for pills) to improve Diaz (a liquid medicament delivery system), and in any event Robertson does not disclose the missing feature.
Lack of inventive step over Diaz combined with Robertson
KlägerRechtsgrundlage: Art. 56 EPCBegründung: Neither Diaz nor Robertson discloses feature 1.3iii (the support structure limiting container expansion), and the combination of the two references cannot supply this missing element; the skilled person would have had no motivation to combine the two documents.
Lack of inventive step starting from Glejboel combined with Diaz and/or Robertson
KlägerRechtsgrundlage: Art. 56 EPCBegründung: Neither Glejboel, Diaz, nor Robertson discloses feature 1.3iii, so this combination also fails to establish obviousness.
- Diaz (unspecified publication, liquid drug delivery system)Erfindungsmüh-Kombination
- Robertson (unspecified publication, container for solid medicaments)Erfindungsmüh-Kombination
- Glejboel (unspecified publication)Erfindungsmüh-Kombination
The court interpreted claim 1 of EP 2 196 231 as requiring a support structure that limits the expansion of the flexible container (feature 1.3iii). This feature was critical to the inventive step analysis: the court found that Diaz's reservoir casing, which surrounds the reservoir to protect medication, does not disclose this limiting function because the casing in Diaz is intended to leave a gap even when the reservoir is full.