UPC Analytics
ENDE
Overview · Filed: Aug 29, 2025

UPC_CFI_808/2025

DETECTION AND TREATMENT OF DISEASE EXHIBITING DISEASE CELL HETEROGENEITY AND SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR COMMUNICATING TEST RESULTS

Provisional measuresProvisional MeasuresParis LDProvisional measuresOral Phase
OverviewDecisionsReasoningCitationsDocumentsTimeline
Plain-English summary

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of EP 3 766 986 unproven as reliance on a single press release was insufficient evidence; Guardant had previously withdrawn its request under EP 3 470 533.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.

Accepted arguments
What the court agreed with — by party.

  • 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 order

    Note: 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 RoP

    Note: 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.

Rejected arguments
What the court did not agree with — and why.

  • Three-month delay between learning of potential infringement and filing the PI application constitutes unreasonable delay

    RespondentLegal basis: R. 211.4 RoP

    Reason: 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 RoP

    Reason: 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.

Key legal principles
Doctrines and rules cited in the reasoning.
Added matter test: all claim elements must be directly and unambiguously derivable from the application as filed; selective combination of scattered fragments without clear indication is impermissibleBurden of proof for infringement in PI proceedings rests on applicant (R. 211.2 RoP)A press release alone is insufficient evidence to demonstrate how accused software processes dataThree months is a reasonable delay for PI preparation in complex multi-patent proceedings (R. 211.4 RoP)Burden of proof for patent invalidity in PI proceedings rests on respondent

Browse other cases on this principle.

Claim construction notes

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.