Home » UPC decisions » Local Division » Duesseldorf Local Division » LD Düsseldorf, June 30, 2025, order on reimbursement of Court fees, UPC_CFI_504/2023

LD Düsseldorf, June 30, 2025, order on reimbursement of Court fees, UPC_CFI_504/2023

Michael Kobler

2 min Reading time

Table of Contents

  1. Key takeaways
  2. Division
  3. UPC number
  4. Type of proceedings
  5. Parties
  6. Patent(s)
  7. Body of legislation / Rules

Download decision(s) (PDF)

Key takeaways

Oral procedure is closed in the meaning of Rule 370.9 (c) RoP with the closure of the oral hearing.

✓

Rules 111 to 119 RoP do not include a definition of the closure of oral procedure. However, it follows from Rule 111 (b) RoP, which stipulates that the Presiding Judge shall “ensure that the action is ready for decision on the merits at the end of the oral hearing” that the oral procedure is closed with the end of the oral hearing.

Therefore, in case of a settlement after the oral hearing but before the decision on the merits, there is no reimbursement of Court fees pursuant to Rule 370.9 (c) RoP.

Division

Local Division Düsseldorf

UPC number

UPC_CFI_504/2023

App_29093/2025, App_30136/2025 and App_31181/2025 re. ACT_597323/2023, CC_20972/2024 and CC_21542/2024

Type of proceedings

Procedural order re. cost reimbursement

Parties

CLAIMANTS:

  1. F. Hoffmann-La Roche AG (Basel, Switzerland)
  2. Roche Diabetes Care GmbH (Mannheim, Germany)

DEFENDANTS:

  1. Tandem Diabetes Care, Inc. (San Diego, United States)
  2. Tandem Diabetes Care Europe B.V. (Schiphol, Netherlands)
  3. VitalAire GmbH (Norderstedt, Germany)
  4. Dinno Santé s.a.i. (Bussy-Saint-Georges, France)
  5. Air Liquide Healthcare Nederland B.V. (Lelystad, Netherlands)
  6. Rubin Medical ApS (Hvidovre, Denmark)

Patent(s)

EP 1 970 677 B1

Body of legislation / Rules

Rule 370.9 (c) RoP

2026-6-30 UPC_CFI_504_2023_deDownload

Was the article helpful?

Categories

Tags

More exciting articles on similar topics

Content not to be missed

  • The Hague Local Division

    LD The Hague, August 18, 2025, Order, UPC CFI 191/2025 & UPC CFI 192/2025

    The scope of a review under R. 333 RoP is marginal and limited to the reasoned grounds submitted by the applicant: When reviewing a Judge-Rapporteur’s order, the full panel will not re-examine the entire decision but will confine its assessment to the specific, substantiated grounds for review raised by the applicant. Issues not challenged in …
    →
  • Munich Local Division

    LD Munich, August 19, 2025, Procedural Order, UPC_CFI_319/2025

    The court may separate proceedings against multiple defendants on its own initiative to ensure procedural efficiency, especially when service is delayed on some defendants (Rule 303.2 RoP): When service was completed for two defendants but not for two others, the court found it unreasonable to delay the action and ordered a separation to avoid stalling …
    →
  • Duesseldorf Local Division

    LD Düsseldorf, September 3, 2025, Order, UPC_CFI_449/2025

    The application for a default decision merely supplements, but does not replace, the main application for a PI and other provisional measures: Under R. 209.1(a) RoP, the Court notifies the defendant of an application for provisional measures and invite objections. If the defendant does not respond or declines to substantiate objections, the Court may decide …
    →

Stay in the loop

Never miss a beat by subscribing to the email newsletter. Please see our Privacy Policy.

* = Required field