UPClytics
View all cases

UPC CFI 2307/2026

Jun 26, 2026·EP2422198 +3 more · LIPID BILAYER SENSOR ARRAY

Case details
Status
Case Closed
Action
Provisional measures
Category
Provisional measures
Parties
Claimants
Representatives
Respondents
Representatives
Division
Munich LD
Technology
  • Instruments
    Analysis of biological materials
  • Chemistry
    Biotechnology · Micro-structural and nano-technology
Language
English
First decided
Jul 20, 2026
Last decision
Sep 17, 2026
EPO Opposition
  • OLSWANG LLP2014-06-24
  • James Poole LimitedAdmissible2019-08-12
How this compares
The court's record for this kind of case, counted in first-instance rulings. A figure in brackets is the number of rulings a rate rests on.
Preliminary injunction grantedMedian days to first decision
All UPC54% (38/70)124
Munich LDLockedLocked
Judge Matthias ZigannLockedLocked
Judge Tobias PichlmaierLockedLocked
Judge Rute LopesLockedLocked
Judge Steen Wadskov-HansenLockedLocked

At the UPC: OXFORD NANOPORE TECHNOLOGIES PLC (3 cases)·MGI TECH GmbH (2 cases)

Related cases
Decisions
  • 2026-09-17
    Provisional measuresPublic

    Summary: The Munich Local Division granted Oxford Nanopore provisional measures against MGI Tech GmbH, ordering it to refrain from direct and indirect infringement of claims 1 and 7 of EP 2 422 198 and claim 1 of EP 2 715 343 by the CycloneSEQ and G100-ER/G400-ER sequencers, with delivery-up, information and recurring penalties. The application against respondents 2) to 4) was separated into a new case; the application on two other patents had been withdrawn and all other requests were dismissed.

    Show the legal issues (6)
    • Provisional measures (R. 206 RoP)
    • Joint tortfeasorship / common design
    • Long-arm jurisdiction over non-UPC states
    • Imminent infringement despite missing regulatory approvals
    • Separation of proceedings against unserved respondents (R. 303 RoP)
    • Security for enforcement not ordered
  • 2026-07-20
    Provisional measuresPublic

    Summary: The court rejected the respondents' application for an extension of the time period to file an objection to Oxford Nanopore's provisional measures application. The judge-rapporteur found that the time period (with a fixed deadline of 24 July 2026) was sufficient given the respondents' prior knowledge of the patents and the allegations from Australian proceedings, and that altering the schedule would prevent thorough panel preparation and necessitate a later oral hearing.

    Show the legal issues (4)
    • Extension of time period to file objection to provisional measures application (R. 206 RoP)
    • Balance between respondent's right to be heard and applicant's right to fast and effective remedies
    • Effect of inaccessibility to CMS case file on time period calculation
    • Relevance of parallel foreign proceedings to time sufficiency
Document titleDatePublic
Communication2026-10-19Not public
Receipt2026-10-16Not public
Cover sheet2026-10-16Not public
Fee2026-10-16Not public
Proof of payment2026-10-16Not public
Application document Claimant2026-10-16Not public
Exhibit Claimant2026-10-16Not public
Exhibit Claimant2026-10-16Not public
Exhibit Claimant2026-10-16Not public
Exhibit Claimant2026-10-16Not public