UPC CFI, CD Paris, 18 December 2024: Revocation dismissed - no added matter - breach of standstill clause does not affect jurisdiction

Revocation action dismissed; EP 231 maintained as granted (Article 65 UPCA). 

Action admissible in spite of breach of a standstill clause. A breach of a standstill clause does not necessarily divest the breaching party of the right to bring an action but it may only give rise to liability for breach of contract. 

Claimant in revocation action cannot introduce new grounds of invalidity or introduce new documents considered novelty destroying or affecting inventive step in subsequent written acts (R. 44 RoP, R. 263 RoP). Similarly, the claimant must specify in the statement of claim the facts that it considers necessary to prove in order to succeed in its claim, together with the relevant evidence. However, following the defence raised, the  the claimant may need to allege new facts, insofar as they are considered capable of supporting the main facts already timely alleged and disputed by the defendant. Likewise, the need to produce new evidence may arise from the defendant's defence which disputes the facts alleged by the claimant or the probative value of the evidence already filed in Court. 

Person skilled in the art (article 56 EPC) may be identified – lacking any indication from the parties – in a generic technical expert who understands the technical meaning of these features. 

No added matter (Article 123(2) EPC): the sentence in para. [0003] discloses a variant including only features A and C (and not B). Therefore, feature 1.5 of claim 1 – including features A and C – is supported by the description of the application as filed.

IPPT20241218, UPC CFI, CD Paris, Tandem Diabetes Care v Roche Diabetes Care