UPC Analytics
DEEN
Übersicht · Eingereicht: —

ACT_551180/2023

COMPOSITIONS AND METHODS FOR ANALYTE DETECTION

NichtigkeitHauptnichtigkeitsklageMunich CDRevocation Action—
ÜbersichtEntscheidungenBegründungZitateDokumenteZeitverlauf
Zusammenfassung in einfacher Sprache

NanoString Technologies Europe Limited brought a revocation action before the Munich Central Division against President and Fellows of Harvard College concerning EP 2 794 928, a patent directed to compositions and methods for analyte detection. The court found claim 1 as granted lacked novelty over the prior art document Göransson, and all eight auxiliary requests lacked inventive step, resulting in full revocation of the patent with effect in France, Germany, and the Netherlands. The decision aligned with the German Federal Patent Court's findings and the Court of Appeal's reasoning in a related NanoString/10x Genomics appeal.

Angenommene Argumente
Was das Gericht akzeptiert hat — nach Partei.

  • Claim 1 as granted lacks novelty over Göransson

    KlägerRechtsgrundlage: Art. 54(1) EPC

    Hinweis: NanoString successfully established that the subject-matter of claim 1 of EP 2 794 928 was directly and unambiguously disclosed in the prior art document Göransson, resulting in revocation of the main request.

  • All auxiliary requests 1–8 lack inventive step over Göransson

    KlägerRechtsgrundlage: Art. 56 EPC

    Hinweis: The Central Division (Munich) found that each of Harvard's eight auxiliary requests also failed to establish inventive step over Göransson, as none of the additional features rendered the claimed subject-matter inventive.

  • Subsequent auxiliary requests should not be admitted as they could and should have been filed earlier under the front-loaded UPC procedure

    KlägerRechtsgrundlage: R. 50.2 RoP; R. 30.2 RoP; Preamble 7 RoP

    Hinweis: The court declined to admit late-filed auxiliary requests from Harvard on the basis that the front-loaded nature of UPC proceedings requires parties to set out their full case as early as possible.

Zurückgewiesene Argumente
Was das Gericht nicht akzeptiert hat — und warum.

  • Proceedings should be stayed pending related national revocation action

    BeklagterRechtsgrundlage: Art. 30 Brussels I recast Regulation

    Begründung: The Central Division declined to exercise its discretion to stay proceedings under Art. 30 Brussels I recast Regulation, finding the circumstances did not warrant a stay.

  • Auxiliary requests 2–8 render the claimed subject-matter patentable

    BeklagterRechtsgrundlage: Art. 56 EPC

    Begründung: Each auxiliary request was found to lack inventive step for the same or analogous reasons as AR1; additional features such as cleavage-based removal, specified lengths of subsequences and decoder probes, and 'at least two' plurality were all held not to establish inventive step over Göransson.

Zentrale Rechtsgrundsätze
In der Begründung herangezogene Doktrinen und Regeln.
novelty assessment requires direct and unambiguous disclosure of all claim features in prior artfront-loaded proceedings require parties to set out full case as early as possiblediscretion to stay proceedings where related national action pendinginternational jurisdiction examined of own motion where required by Union lawinventive step assessed using problem-solution approach

Weitere Fälle zu diesem Grundsatz ansehen.

Herangezogener Stand der Technik
Zitierte Schriften und die Rolle, die sie gespielt haben.
  • GöranssonNeuheitsschädlich
  • D46Erfindungsmüh-Kombination
Hinweise zur Anspruchsauslegung

The court interpreted 'a plurality' of predetermined subsequences as meaning 'at least two', which was consistent with NanoString's position and formed part of the basis for finding lack of novelty/inventive step against AR8. No further detailed claim construction is described in the available excerpt.