UPClytics
View all cases

UPC CoA 335/2023

Sep 26, 2023·EP4108782 Unitary patent · COMPOSITIONS AND METHODS FOR ANALYTE DETECTION

Case details
Status
Case Closed
Action
Appeal
Category
Main appeal
Parties
Claimants
Representatives
Respondents
Representatives
Division
Court of Appeal
Technology
  • Instruments
    Analysis of biological materials
  • Chemistry
    Biotechnology
Language
German
First decided
Feb 26, 2024
Last decision
Mar 11, 2024
EPO Opposition
How this compares
How long the court takes to reach a first decision.
Median days to first decision
All UPC124
Judge Rian KaldenLocked
Judge Patricia RombachLocked
Judge Ingeborg SimonssonLocked

At the UPC: NanoString Group (21 cases)·10x Genomics, Inc. (40 cases)

Decisions
  • 2024-03-11
    Appeal RoP220.1Public

    Summary: Order of the Court of Appeal revoking the Munich Local Division's provisional measures order in favour of NanoString Technologies Inc. and NanoString Technologies Germany GmbH and NanoString Technologies Netherlands B.V. against President and Fellows of Harvard College and 10x Genomics, Inc. concerning EP 4 108 782 (multiplex in situ detection). The Court of Appeal found that the balance of probabilities indicated the patent was likely invalid (lack of inventive step) given prior art D6, such that a sufficient degree of certainty under Rule 211.2 RoP was lacking. Applicants bear costs. The order sets out important principles on patent claim interpretation, claim scope, and the standard for granting provisional measures.

    Show the legal issues (6)
    • Provisional measures Art. 62 UPCA
    • Standard of sufficiency of certainty Rule 211.2 RoP
    • Patent claim interpretation Art. 69 EPC Protocol
    • Inventive step assessment
    • Multiplex in situ detection technology
    • Burden of proof in provisional measures
  • 2024-02-26

    Summary: The Court of Appeal of the UPC refused to stay the provisional measures appeal proceedings despite NanoString's Chapter 11 bankruptcy filing in the US. The court held that even if the insolvency threshold under R. 311.1 RoP was met, no stay was warranted where the oral proceedings were already concluded and the case was ready for decision, balancing procedural economy and cost efficiency under Art. 41(3) UPCA.

    Show the legal issues (4)
    • Stay of proceedings upon insolvency (R. 311.1 RoP)
    • Chapter 11 bankruptcy as insolvency under UPC Rules
    • Procedural economy and fair balance of interests (Art. 41(3) UPCA)
    • Appeal against provisional measures order
Document titleDatePublic
Outcome of the Order2025-03-18Not public
Close workflow2025-03-18Not public
Outcome of the Order2025-02-19Not public
Close workflow2025-02-19Public
Outcome of the Order2025-02-19Not public
Close workflow2025-02-19Not public
Close workflow2025-02-19Not public
Close workflow2025-02-19Not public
Headnote-and-Keywords2025-02-14Not public
Outcome of the Order2024-12-18Not public