UPClytics
Alle Fälle anzeigen

UPC CFI 808/2025

29. Aug. 2025·EP3766986 +3 more · DETECTION AND TREATMENT OF DISEASE EXHIBITING DISEASE CELL HETEROGENEITY AND SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR COMMUNICATING TEST RESULTS

Verfahrensdetails
Status
Case Closed
Verfahrensart
Einstweilige Verfügung
Kategorie
Einstweilige Maßnahmen
Parteien
Kläger
Vertreter
Beklagte
Vertreter
Division
Paris LD
Technologie
  • Chemistry
    Biotechnology
  • Electrical engineering
    Computer technology
Sprache
English
Erste Entscheidung
1. Okt. 2025
Letzte Entscheidung
23. Jan. 2026
EPA-Einspruch
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.
Einstweilige Verfügung erlassenMedian Tage bis zur ersten Entscheidung
Gesamt-UPC54% (38/70)124
Paris LDGesperrtGesperrt
Richter Camille LignièresGesperrtGesperrt
Richter Carine GilletGesperrtGesperrt
Richter Maximilian HaedickeGesperrtGesperrt
Richter Cornelis SchüllerGesperrtGesperrt

Vor dem UPC: Guardant Health, Inc. (5 Verfahren)·Sophia Genetics SA (5 Verfahren)

Verwandte Verfahren
Entscheidungen
  • 2026-01-23
    Application for provisional measuresÖffentlich

    Zusammenfassung: The Paris Local Division rejected Guardant Health's application for provisional measures under three patents (EP 3 591 073, EP 3 443 066, EP 3 766 986) against Sophia Genetics. The court found issues of added matter in the divisional patent and insufficient evidence to demonstrate infringement with the required degree of certainty. Guardant Health's request regarding a fourth patent (EP 3 470 533) was withdrawn during proceedings. Guardant Health ordered to pay Sophia Genetics EUR 400,000 as interim costs.

    Rechtsfragen anzeigen (5)
    • Provisional measures (Rule 211 RoP)
    • Unreasonable delay (Rule 211.4 RoP)
    • Added matter in divisional patent
    • Sufficient degree of certainty for infringement (Rule 211.2 RoP)
    • Burden of proof
  • 2025-10-01
    Application for provisional measuresÖffentlich

    Zusammenfassung: The Paris Local Division issued a scheduling order for the oral hearing in Guardant Health's preliminary injunction application against Sophia Genetics entities based on four patents (EP 3 766 986, EP 3 470 533, EP 3 443 066, EP 3 591 073) relating to genomic analysis, after defendants failed to appoint representatives within 15 days of service.

    Rechtsfragen anzeigen (2)
    • Scheduling for preliminary injunction hearing (R. 209.1, 210.1 RoP)
    • Default of defendant (failure to appoint representatives)
DokumenttitelDatumÖffentlich
Receipt2026-07-30Nicht öffentlich
Cover sheet2026-07-30Nicht öffentlich
Application document Defendant2026-07-30Nicht öffentlich
Receipt2026-07-30Nicht öffentlich
Cover sheet2026-07-30Nicht öffentlich
Exhibit Respondent2026-07-30Nicht öffentlich
Exhibit Respondent2026-07-30Nicht öffentlich
Exhibit Respondent2026-07-30Nicht öffentlich
Exhibit Respondent2026-07-30Nicht öffentlich
Exhibit Respondent2026-07-30Nicht öffentlich
Zusammenfassung in einfacher Sprache

Guardant Health's application for provisional measures against Sophia Genetics entities covering four genomic analysis patents was rejected by the Paris Local Division. The court found EP 3 591 073 (divisional) likely invalid for added matter because the granted claim combined scattered features from the PCT application without clear basis, and found infringement of EP 3 766 986 unproven as reliance on a single press release was insufficient evidence; Guardant had previously withdrawn its request under EP 3 470 533. Guardant was ordered to pay EUR 400,000 in interim costs to Sophia Genetics.

Angenommene Argumente
Was das Gericht akzeptiert hat — nach Partei.
  • Added matter in divisional patent EP 3 591 073: granted claim cannot be directly and unambiguously derived from the PCT application as filed

    BeklagterRechtsgrundlage: Art. 76 EPC; headnote 2-3 of the order

    Hinweis: Court found that selective combinations of scattered fragments from the PCT application without clear indication in the earlier application constitute added matter, making the patent likely invalid.

  • Infringement of EP 3 766 986 not sufficiently proven: reliance on a single press release is insufficient

    BeklagterRechtsgrundlage: R. 211.2 RoP

    Hinweis: Court held that the burden of proof for infringement lies with the applicant and that a press release alone does not demonstrate how the accused DDM software platform processes data.

Zurückgewiesene Argumente
Was das Gericht nicht akzeptiert hat — und warum.
  • Three-month delay between learning of potential infringement and filing the PI application constitutes unreasonable delay

    BeklagterRechtsgrundlage: R. 211.4 RoP

    Begründung: Court found three months reasonable given the complexity of the technology and the need to gather evidence across several patents (headnote 1).

  • Indirect infringement under Art. 26 UPCA should be found for EP 3 766 986 even if direct infringement not established

    KlägerRechtsgrundlage: Art. 25-26 UPCA; R. 211.2 RoP

    Begründung: Court held that the same insufficient evidence problem applies equally to indirect infringement allegations; reliance on a press release does not satisfy the burden of proof for either direct or indirect infringement.

Hinweise zur Anspruchsauslegung

The court did not reach final claim construction for EP 3 766 986 because the infringement evidence was found insufficient. For EP 3 591 073, the court examined whether selected claim features were directly and unambiguously derivable from the PCT parent application, concluding they were not, making the divisional invalid for added matter.