UPC APP 22399/2024

—

Case details: Status
—
Action
Procedural application
Category
Other Procedural
Parties: Claimants
10x Genomics, Inc.
President and Fellows of Harvard College
Reps: Tilman Müller-Stoy (Bardehle Pagenberg)
Respondents
NanoString Technologies Inc.
NanoString Technologies Germany GmbH
NanoString Technologies Netherlands B.V.
Reps: Oliver Jan Jüngst (Bird & Bird LLP)
Division: Court of Appeal
Judges: —
Language: —
First decided: Aug 6, 2024

Decisions

2024-08-06
Appeal decisionGeneric application
The Court of Appeal dismissed 10x Genomics' application for review (Wiederaufnahme) of an earlier appeal order concerning provisional measures in which 10x Genomics had lost to NanoString. The court held that re-examination of evidence assessment is not available via a review application, and that the court's use of the phrase 'in the court's technical assessment' did not constitute use of judges' personal opinions as evidence. The court also held there was a legal basis for the cost allocation decision in Rule 242.1 RoP.
Legal issues:Review of prior appeal order under Rule 245 RoPUse of judges' technical expertise vs evidenceCosts decision legal basis under Rule 242.1 RoP in provisional measures appeal

Documents