UPC CFI 437/2024
Jul 25, 2024·EP3346403 · DATA PROCESSING, ANALYSIS METHOD OF GENE EXPRESSION DATA TO IDENTIFY ENDOGENOUS REFERENCE GENES
- Case details
- StatusCase Closed (No infringement)ActionInfringementCategoryMain infringement action
- Parties
- Claimants
- GXD-Bio CorporationOther / unknown
Representatives- Georg Rauh-Vossius & Brinkhof UPC Litigators
Respondents- Myriad International GmbHOperating co.
- Myriad GmbHOperating co.
- Myriad Service GmbHOperating co.
- Myriad Genetics GmbHOperating co.
- Myriad Genetics S.A.S.Operating co.
- Myriad Genetics B.V.Operating co.
- Myriad Genetics S.r.l.Operating co.
- Myriad Genetics, Inc.Operating co.
- Eurobio ScientificOperating co.
Representatives- Niels Hoelder-Hoffmann Eitle
- Division
- Munich LD
- Technology
- Electrical engineeringComputer technology
- ChemistryBiotechnology
- Language
- English
- First decided
- Dec 19, 2025
| Infringement found | Median days to first decision | |
|---|---|---|
| All UPC | 53% (62/117) | 124 |
| Munich LD | Locked | Locked |
| Judge Daniel Voss | Locked | Locked |
| Judge Georg Werner | Locked | Locked |
| Judge Marije Knijff | Locked | Locked |
| Judge Cornelis Schüller | — | Locked |
At the UPC: GXD-Bio Corporation (8 cases)·Myriad Genetics Group (8 cases)
This dispute contains 7 other proceedings
UPC CoA 32/2026·UPC CoA 33/2026·UPC CFI 192/2026·UPC CFI 195/2026·UPC CFI 681/2024 and 2 more
- 2025-12-19Counterclaim for revocationPublic
Summary: 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.
Show the legal issues (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
| Document title | Date | Public |
|---|---|---|
| Order | 2026-01-21 | Not public |
| Order | 2026-01-21 | Not public |
| Receipt | 2026-01-19 | Not public |
| Cover sheet | 2026-01-19 | Not public |
| Exhibit document Applicant | 2026-01-19 | Not public |
| Application document Applicant | 2026-01-19 | Not public |
| Decision | 2025-12-19 | Public |
| Case closed | 2025-12-19 | Not public |
| Decision | 2025-12-19 | Not public |
| Decision | 2025-12-19 | Not public |