UPClytics
Alle Fälle anzeigen

UPC CFI 252/2023

27. Juli 2023·EP2794928 · COMPOSITIONS AND METHODS FOR ANALYTE DETECTION

Hauptaktenzeichen: ACT 551180/2023

Verfahrensdetails
Status
Case Closed (Patent nichtig)
Verfahrensart
Nichtigkeit
Kategorie
Hauptnichtigkeitsklage
Parteien
Kläger
Vertreter
Beklagte
Vertreter
Division
Munich CD
Technologie
  • Instruments
    Analysis of biological materials
  • Chemistry
    Biotechnology
Sprache
English
Erste Entscheidung
4. Okt. 2023
Letzte Entscheidung
17. Okt. 2024
Im Vergleich
Die Bilanz des Gerichts für diese Art von Verfahren, gezählt in erstinstanzlichen Entscheidungen. Eine Zahl in Klammern gibt an, auf wie vielen Entscheidungen eine Quote beruht.
Patent nichtigMedian Tage bis zur ersten Entscheidung
Gesamt-UPC37% (34/91)124
Munich CDGesperrtGesperrt
Richter Ulrike VoßGesperrtGesperrt
Richter András KupeczGesperrtGesperrt
Richter Eric EnderlinGesperrtGesperrt

Vor dem UPC: NanoString Group (21 Verfahren)·President and Fellows of Harvard College (21 Verfahren)

Dieser Streit umfasst 3 weitere Verfahren

UPC CoA 808/2024·UPC APP 42900/2024·UPC APP 56792/2024

13 weitere Beklagte zum selben oder einem verwandten Patent

UPC CFI 3233/2026·UPC CFI 1594/2026·UPC CoA 681/2025·UPC CoA 654/2024·UPC CoA 470/2023 und 8 weitere

Starten Sie die kostenlose Testphase, um die Ausgänge zu sehen.

Weitere Verfahren: Munich CD·2023

Entscheidungen
  • 2024-10-17
    Revocation ActionÖffentlich

    Zusammenfassung: The Munich Section of the Central Division revoked European Patent EP 2 794 928 B1 (owned by President and Fellows of Harvard College) in its entirety, with effect in France, Germany, and the Netherlands, in a revocation action brought by NanoString Technologies Europe Limited. The Court found that the main claim lacked novelty over the prior art disclosure 'Göransson', and that all eight auxiliary requests (AR1–8) also lacked inventive step over Göransson. Harvard's auxiliary requests to amend the patent were all rejected. Harvard as the unsuccessful party must bear NanoString's legal costs.

    Rechtsfragen anzeigen (5)
    • Revocation — novelty under Art. 54(1) EPC
    • Inventive step over Göransson prior art
    • Late auxiliary requests under R. 50.2 RoP
    • Stay of proceedings / lis pendens under Art. 29–32 Brussels I Recast
    • International jurisdiction of the UPC
  • 2024-01-31
    Revocation ActionÖffentlich

    Zusammenfassung: The Munich Central Division issued orders following the interim conference in the NanoString v. Harvard revocation action, admitting document D46 as prior art, confirming the oral hearing for 17 April 2024, and setting the value of proceedings at EUR 7.5 million.

    Rechtsfragen anzeigen (3)
    • Admission of prior art document D46 under Rules 103/105.5 RoP
    • Setting of oral hearing date and value of proceedings
    • Interim conference procedure
  • 2024-01-31
    Revocation ActionÖffentlich

    Zusammenfassung: The Munich Central Division judge-rapporteur issued an interim conference order (R. 103/105.5 RoP) in the revocation action by NanoString Technologies Europe against Harvard concerning EP 2 794 928. The order recorded directions from the interim conference, including admission of document D46 with a response period for the defendant, and setting the value of proceedings at EUR 7,500,000.

    Rechtsfragen anzeigen (3)
    • Admission of late-filed prior art document (D46)
    • Front-loaded proceedings and submission of prior art
    • Value of proceedings set at EUR 7,500,000
  • 2024-01-31
    Revocation ActionÖffentlich

    Zusammenfassung: Procedural order from Munich Central Division (judge-rapporteur András Kupecz) following the interim conference in a revocation action brought by NanoString Technologies Europe Limited against President and Fellows of Harvard College concerning EP 2 794 928. The order addresses admissibility of document D46 (filed as prior art in the reply): the defendant withdrew its objection, D46 was admitted into proceedings, and the defendant was given six weeks to respond in writing. Further, the judge-rapporteur indicated the case value for cost purposes. No substantive ruling.

    Rechtsfragen anzeigen (3)
    • Admissibility of late-filed prior art document (D46)
    • Front-loaded proceedings (R. 43 RoP)
    • Interim conference procedure (R. 103/105.5 RoP)
  • 2023-10-30
    Revocation ActionÖffentlich

    Zusammenfassung: The Munich Central Division ordered Harvard College (claimant/defendant in revocation action) to provide security for legal costs under Article 69(4) UPCA and Rule 158 RoP, finding legitimate concern about enforcement of a potential cost order against NanoString Technologies Europe (a UK-based entity) in light of a preliminary injunction already imposed.

    Rechtsfragen anzeigen (4)
    • Security for legal costs (Art. 69(4) UPCA, Rule 158 RoP)
    • Enforcement in UK
    • Proportionality
    • Article 47 EU Charter
  • 2023-10-04
    Revocation ActionÖffentlich

    Zusammenfassung: The Munich Central Division ordered that a preliminary objection based on Articles 29 and 30 Brussels Ibis Regulation (lis pendens / related actions) be dealt with in the main proceedings rather than separately, for reasons of procedural economy and efficiency under Rule 20.2 RoP.

    Rechtsfragen anzeigen (4)
    • Preliminary objection (Rule 48 RoP)
    • Jurisdiction (Arts. 29-30 Brussels Ibis)
    • Lis pendens
    • Rule 20.2 RoP
DokumenttitelDatumÖffentlich
Procedural Order2025-01-03Nicht öffentlich
Order re Release of Security2024-12-17Nicht öffentlich
Headnote-and-Keywords2024-12-17Nicht öffentlich
Outcome of the Order2024-12-17Nicht öffentlich
final order application to release security2024-12-17Öffentlich
final order application to release security2024-12-17Nicht öffentlich
Template-Order2024-12-17Nicht öffentlich
Reply2024-12-09Nicht öffentlich
241125 NanoString - Response to order re security2024-11-25Nicht öffentlich
preliminary order2024-11-18Nicht öffentlich
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.

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.