UPC CFI 2/2023
1. Juni 2023·EP4108782 Einheitspatent · COMPOSITIONS AND METHODS FOR ANALYTE DETECTION
- Verfahrensdetails
- StatusCase ClosedIn der Berufung aufgehoben, 11. März 2024VerfahrensartEinstweilige VerfügungKategorieEinstweilige Maßnahmen
- Parteien
- Beklagte
- NanoString Technologies Inc.Unternehmen
- NanoString Technologies Germany GmbHUnternehmen
- NanoString Technologies Netherlands B.V.Unternehmen
Vertreter- Oliver Jan Jüngst-Bird & Bird LLP
- Division
- Munich LD
- Technologie
- InstrumentsAnalysis of biological materials
- ChemistryBiotechnology
- Sprache
- German
- Erste Entscheidung
- 23. Juni 2023
- Letzte Entscheidung
- 5. Dez. 2023
- EPA-Einspruch
- NanoString Technologies, Inc.Zulässig2023-07-18
- König Szynka Tilmann von RenesseZulässig2024-03-07
- Vizgen, Inc.Zurückgenommen2024-03-07
- Bruker Spatial Biology, Inc.Zurückgenommen2023-07-18
- Berufung
- Aufgehoben durch UPC CoA 335/2023 · 11. März 2024
| Einstweilige Verfügung erlassen | Median Tage bis zur ersten Entscheidung | |
|---|---|---|
| Gesamt-UPC | 54% (38/70) | 124 |
| Munich LD | Gesperrt | Gesperrt |
| Richter Matthias Zigann | Gesperrt | Gesperrt |
| Richter Tobias Pichlmaier | Gesperrt | Gesperrt |
| Richter András Kupecz | Gesperrt | Gesperrt |
| Richter Eric Enderlin | Gesperrt | Gesperrt |
Vor dem UPC: 10x Genomics, Inc. (40 Verfahren)·NanoString Group (21 Verfahren)
Dieser Streit umfasst 5 weitere Verfahren
UPC CoA 681/2025·UPC CoA 470/2023·UPC CFI 357/2023·UPC CoA 335/2023·UPC CFI 326/2023
9 weitere Beklagte zum selben oder einem verwandten Patent
UPC CFI 3233/2026·UPC CFI 1594/2026·UPC CoA 808/2024·UPC CoA 654/2024·CC 592964/2023 und 4 weitere
Starten Sie die kostenlose Testphase, um die Ausgänge zu sehen.
- 2023-12-05Application for provisional measuresÖffentlich
Zusammenfassung: The Munich Local Division imposed a penalty payment of EUR 100,000 on NanoString Technologies entities for non-compliance with a preliminary injunction under Article 62 UPCA, clarifying that no separate enforcement order is required under Article 82(4) UPCA and that national enforcement law requirements do not apply.
Rechtsfragen anzeigen (3)
- Penalty payment for violation of provisional injunction (Art. 82(4) UPCA)
- No separate enforcement order required
- Rule 118.8 RoP inapplicable to Art. 62 orders
- 2023-09-19Application for provisional measuresÖffentlich
Zusammenfassung: The Munich Local Division granted provisional measures to 10x Genomics and President and Fellows of Harvard College against NanoString Technologies (EP 4 108 782 — spatial genomics), prohibiting NanoString from offering, selling or delivering MERSCOPE decoder probes, with penalty of up to EUR 250,000 per violation; the amount in dispute was set at EUR 7 million.
Rechtsfragen anzeigen (5)
- Provisional measures Art. 62 UPCA
- Prima facie validity unitary patent
- Delay in seeking provisional measures
- Indirect patent infringement
- Enforcement of unitary patent vs. European patent
- 2023-09-19Application for provisional measuresÖffentlich
Zusammenfassung: HEADNOTES SHEET ONLY (Leitsaetze, Lokalkammer Muenchen), one page, image-only with no text layer. It states three legal principles on provisional measures under Art. 62 UPCA and contains NO operative part, no parties and no order. It is the headnote page of the 2023-09-19 provisional-measures ruling on this docket, whose two other PDFs are already extracted as preliminary_injunction_granted. The outcome fields are set to MATCH those siblings so that collapseDecisionVariants folds this variant into the same ruling; they are NOT read from the face of this document, which decides nothing.
Rechtsfragen anzeigen (3)
- preponderant likelihood sufficient for validity conviction under Art. 62 UPCA
- unreasonable delay in seeking provisional measures runs from knowledge of infringement
- enforcement of a non-unitary European patent is not equivalent to enforcing a unitary patent
- 2023-07-10Application for provisional measuresÖffentlich
Zusammenfassung: The Munich Local Division granted a deadline extension in the 10x Genomics/Harvard v. NanoString preliminary injunction proceedings following a request by the respondent side.
Rechtsfragen anzeigen (1)
- Deadline extension Rule 9.3 RoP
- 2023-07-06Application for provisional measuresÖffentlich
Zusammenfassung: The Munich Local Division issued an order under Rule 7.1 RoP determining that translations of English-language exhibits were not required in the 10x Genomics/Harvard v. NanoString preliminary injunction proceedings.
Rechtsfragen anzeigen (1)
- Translation of exhibits Rule 7.1 RoP
- 2023-06-30Application for provisional measuresÖffentlich
Zusammenfassung: The Munich Local Division issued a supplementary procedural order correcting an earlier scheduling order to require that the defence include the arguments from the protective brief (Schutzschrift) in German, the language of proceedings.
Rechtsfragen anzeigen (3)
- Language of defence
- Protective brief (Schutzschrift)
- Procedural correction
- 2023-06-23Application for provisional measuresÖffentlich
Zusammenfassung: The Munich Local Division issued a scheduling and briefing order for the oral hearing in 10x Genomics and Harvard's preliminary injunction application against NanoString Technologies.
Rechtsfragen anzeigen (2)
- Preliminary injunction scheduling
- Oral hearing
| Dokumenttitel | Datum | Öffentlich |
|---|---|---|
| workflow closed | 2025-07-16 | Nicht öffentlich |
| Outcome of the Order | 2025-07-16 | Nicht öffentlich |
| rectification | 2025-07-16 | Öffentlich |
| Outcome of the Order | 2025-07-16 | Nicht öffentlich |
| workflow closed | 2025-07-16 | Nicht öffentlich |
| Outcome of the Order | 2025-07-16 | Nicht öffentlich |
| workflow closed | 2025-07-16 | Öffentlich |
| Outcome of the Order | 2025-07-16 | Nicht öffentlich |
| workflow closed | 2025-07-16 | Öffentlich |
| Outcome of the Order | 2025-07-16 | Nicht öffentlich |
10x Genomics and President and Fellows of Harvard College obtained provisional measures against NanoString Technologies before the Munich Local Division for infringement of unitary patent EP 4108782 covering spatial genomics analyte detection methods. The court found preponderant likelihood of validity and infringement, and granted an injunction against MERSCOPE decoder probes covering both direct and indirect infringement, with EUR 250,000-per-violation penalties. In subsequent penalty proceedings, the court imposed a EUR 100,000 penalty for NanoString's failure to promptly update its website in compliance with the order, clarifying that no separate enforcement order is needed under Art. 82(4) UPCA for Art. 62 provisional measures.
Prima facie validity of unitary patent EP 4108782 established at preponderant likelihood standard
KlägerRechtsgrundlage: Art. 62 UPCAHinweis: No relevant prior art was presented by NanoString; court found preponderant likelihood of validity sufficient.
NanoString MERSCOPE decoder probes directly and indirectly infringe EP 4108782 (spatial genomics method patent)
KlägerRechtsgrundlage: Art. 62 UPCA; Art. 64 UPCAHinweis: Court found both direct infringement by applying the patented method and indirect infringement through supply of decoder probes as essential components.
Urgency: enforcement of European patent without unitary effect in all member states separately is not an equivalent remedy to UPC enforcement; delay assessed from when UPC enforcement became possible
KlägerRechtsgrundlage: Art. 62 UPCAHinweis: Court accepted that prior national enforcement steps do not amount to unreasonable delay for UPC provisional measures purposes.
Applicants delayed unreasonably in seeking provisional measures
BeklagterRechtsgrundlage: Art. 62 UPCABegründung: Delay must be assessed from when infringement became known and from when UPC enforcement was available; prior enforcement of European patents nationally is not equivalent and does not start the delay clock for UPC measures.
Weitere Fälle zu diesem Grundsatz ansehen.
The Munich Local Division construed claim 1 of EP 4108782 (a spatial genomics method for analyte detection using decoder probes). The court found that NanoString's MERSCOPE decoder probes fell within the claim scope for both direct and indirect infringement. The court also addressed indirect infringement, finding that decoder probes are essential components for application of the patented method.