UPClytics
Alle Fälle anzeigen

UPC CFI 681/2024

8. Nov. 2024·EP3346403 · DATA PROCESSING, ANALYSIS METHOD OF GENE EXPRESSION DATA TO IDENTIFY ENDOGENOUS REFERENCE GENES

Verfahrensdetails
Status
Case Closed (Patent nichtig)
Verfahrensart
Widerklage auf Nichtigkeit
Kategorie
Widerklage auf Nichtigkeit
Parteien
Kläger
Vertreter
Beklagte
Division
Munich LD
Technologie
  • Electrical engineering
    Computer technology
  • Chemistry
    Biotechnology
Sprache
English
Erste Entscheidung
19. Dez. 2025
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 LDGesperrtGesperrt
Richter Daniel VossGesperrtGesperrt
Richter Georg WernerGesperrtGesperrt
Richter Marije KnijffGesperrtGesperrt
Richter Cornelis Schüller—Gesperrt

Vor dem UPC: Myriad Genetics Group (8 Verfahren)·GXD-Bio Corporation (8 Verfahren)

Entscheidungen
  • 2025-12-19
    Counterclaim for revocationÖffentlich

    Zusammenfassung: The Munich Local Division dismissed both the infringement action (UPC_CFI_437/2024) brought by GXD-Bio Corporation and the counterclaim for revocation (UPC_CFI_681/2024) brought by the Myriad defendants, concerning EP 3 346 403 (a patent on data processing/gene expression analysis for identifying endogenous reference genes). The Court found no infringement because the accused products (Myriad test kits) did not use the claimed three-step normalization method — the products used a single-step average normalization that differed from the patented calculation method. The counterclaim for revocation was also dismissed, so the patent was maintained. Each party bears its own costs, with costs capped at EUR 600,000 total.

    Rechtsfragen anzeigen (5)
    • Direct and indirect patent infringement
    • Claim construction of normalization method
    • Timeliness of evidence under R. 9.2 RoP
    • Counterclaim for revocation
    • Patent amendment auxiliary requests
DokumenttitelDatumÖffentlich
Order2026-01-21Nicht öffentlich
Order2026-01-21Nicht öffentlich
Receipt2026-01-19Nicht öffentlich
Cover sheet2026-01-19Nicht öffentlich
Exhibit document Applicant2026-01-19Nicht öffentlich
Application document Applicant2026-01-19Nicht öffentlich
Decision2025-12-19Öffentlich
Verfahren abgeschlossen2025-12-19Nicht öffentlich
Entscheidung2025-12-19Nicht öffentlich
Decision2025-12-19Nicht öffentlich
Zusammenfassung in einfacher Sprache

GXD-Bio Corporation sued multiple Myriad Genetics entities for infringement of EP 3 346 403 B1 (a method for identifying endogenous reference genes using gene expression data) by Myriad's test kits used in breast cancer diagnosis. The Munich Local Division dismissed the infringement action because the accused products use a single-step average normalization rather than the patent's sequential three-step method; simultaneously, the patent was revoked on the Myriad counterclaim for seven UPCA territories, and the amendment application was also dismissed.

Angenommene Argumente
Was das Gericht akzeptiert hat — nach Partei.
  • Myriad's test kits do not perform the patented three-step normalization method of claim 1 of EP 3 346 403

    BeklagterRechtsgrundlage: Art. 25 UPCA; claim construction; direct infringement

    Hinweis: Court accepted that the accused products use a single-step average normalization across three reference genes, which differs from the patent's required sequential normalization against each individual reference gene; the method therefore does not embody the technical teaching.

  • Late-filed argument that the calculation is mathematically equivalent to the patented method must be disregarded

    BeklagterRechtsgrundlage: R. 9.2 RoP

    Hinweis: Claimant's novel mathematical-equivalence argument raised for the first time at oral hearing was excluded as late-filed; defendants had no opportunity to respond.

  • Revocation counterclaim: EP 3 346 403 lacks validity

    BeklagterRechtsgrundlage: Art. 65 UPCA

    Hinweis: Patent was revoked in full for all seven requested territories (AT, BE, FR, DE, IT, LU, NL); the excerpt's outcome summary confirms revocation although detailed grounds are not in the visible excerpt.

Zurückgewiesene Argumente
Was das Gericht nicht akzeptiert hat — und warum.
  • Accused test kits directly infringe claim 1 because the average normalization is mathematically identical to successive per-gene normalization

    KlägerRechtsgrundlage: Art. 25 UPCA; claim construction

    Begründung: Mathematical identity of results does not equate to use of the claimed method; the actual configuration (single-step average) is decisive, and the patented method requires further steps not performed by the accused product.

  • Indirect infringement: the test kit is suitable and intended for the patented method using OAZ1 alone as reference gene

    KlägerRechtsgrundlage: Art. 26 UPCA; indirect infringement

    Begründung: Claimant did not argue that the test kit, despite its materials and reagents, is suitable and intended for normalization against OAZ1 alone; indirect infringement therefore ruled out.

  • Genes CALM2 and RPL37A can serve as further reference genes under the patent's multi-reference-gene reading

    KlägerRechtsgrundlage: Claim construction; Art. 25 UPCA

    Begründung: The patent itself identifies CALM2 and RPL37A as candidate reference genes rejected for insufficient expression stability; using them as reference genes falls outside the claim's scope.

Hinweise zur Anspruchsauslegung

Claim 1 of EP 3 346 403 requires a three-step normalization method in which the expression level of a target gene is normalized against each reference gene individually (sequentially). The court held this excludes a single-step average normalization using the mean of three reference gene expression levels, even if the numerical result is mathematically the same. Reference genes CALM2 and RPL37A were identified in the description as 'candidate' genes not selected as 'guide genes' due to insufficient expression stability, placing them outside the claim's scope.