UPC CFI 808/2025
Aug 29, 2025·EP3766986 +3 more · DETECTION AND TREATMENT OF DISEASE EXHIBITING DISEASE CELL HETEROGENEITY AND SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR COMMUNICATING TEST RESULTS
- Case details
- StatusCase ClosedActionProvisional measuresCategoryProvisional measures
- Parties
- Claimants
- Guardant Health, Inc.Operating co.
Representatives- Agathe Michel-De Cazotte-Carpmaels & Ransford
- Cameron Marshall-Carpmaels & Ransford
- Caroline Horstmann-Freshfields
- Annabel Strawson
Respondents- Sophia Genetics SAOperating co.
- Sophia Genetics SASOperating co.
- Sophia Genetics SRLOperating co.
- Sophia Genetics GmbHOperating co.
- Division
- Paris LD
- Technology
- ChemistryBiotechnology
- Electrical engineeringComputer technology
- Language
- English
- First decided
- Oct 1, 2025
- Last decision
- Jan 23, 2026
- EPO Opposition
- Foundation Medicine Inc.Withdrawn2020-08-06
- Grünecker Patent- und Rechtsanwälte PartG mbBAdmissible2022-09-01
- Margaret Dixon LimitedAdmissible2022-09-01
- Sophia Genetics S.A.2025-11-28
| Preliminary injunction granted | Median days to first decision | |
|---|---|---|
| All UPC | 54% (38/70) | 124 |
| Paris LD | Locked | Locked |
| Judge Camille Lignières | Locked | Locked |
| Judge Carine Gillet | Locked | Locked |
| Judge Maximilian Haedicke | Locked | Locked |
| Judge Cornelis Schüller | Locked | Locked |
At the UPC: Guardant Health, Inc. (5 cases)·Sophia Genetics SA (5 cases)
This dispute contains 3 other proceedings
- 2026-01-23Application for provisional measuresPublic
Summary: 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 Guardant Health's request regarding a fourth patent (EP 3 470 533) was withdrawn during proceedings.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.
Show the legal issues (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
- 2025-10-01Application for provisional measuresPublic
Summary: 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.
Show the legal issues (2)
- Scheduling for preliminary injunction hearing (R. 209.1, 210.1 RoP)
- Default of defendant (failure to appoint representatives)
| Document title | Date | Public |
|---|---|---|
| Receipt | 2026-07-30 | Not public |
| Cover sheet | 2026-07-30 | Not public |
| Application document Defendant | 2026-07-30 | Not public |
| Receipt | 2026-07-30 | Not public |
| Cover sheet | 2026-07-30 | Not public |
| Exhibit Respondent | 2026-07-30 | Not public |
| Exhibit Respondent | 2026-07-30 | Not public |
| Exhibit Respondent | 2026-07-30 | Not public |
| Exhibit Respondent | 2026-07-30 | Not public |
| Exhibit Respondent | 2026-07-30 | Not public |
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.
Added matter in divisional patent EP 3 591 073: granted claim cannot be directly and unambiguously derived from the PCT application as filed
RespondentLegal basis: Art. 76 EPC; headnote 2-3 of the orderNote: 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
RespondentLegal basis: R. 211.2 RoPNote: 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.
Three-month delay between learning of potential infringement and filing the PI application constitutes unreasonable delay
RespondentLegal basis: R. 211.4 RoPReason: 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
ClaimantLegal basis: Art. 25-26 UPCA; R. 211.2 RoPReason: 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.
Browse other cases on this principle.
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.