| 2024-05-22 | UPC_CoA_220/2024 | Court of Appeal | Generic application | — | Dismissed | Court of Appeal denied Volkswagen's request for expedition of the appeal (R.225(e) and R.9.3(b) RoP) against a first-instance order refusing security for costs. The Court held that the request was too unspecified and insufficiently substantiated to justify shortening future time periods at this stage of proceedings. |
| 2024-05-22 | UPC_CoA_221/2024 | Court of Appeal | Generic application | — | Procedural only | Court of Appeal denied Audi's request to expedite the appeal and shorten deadlines (Rule 225(e), Rule 9.3(b) RoP) in its appeal against the dismissal of its security for costs application. The request was denied as too unspecified and insufficiently substantiated. |
| 2024-05-22 | UPC_CoA_224/2024 | Court of Appeal | Application for an Order for expedition of an appeal (RoP225(e)) | — | Dismissed | Court of Appeal denied Texas Instruments' request for expedition of the appeal (R.225(e) and R.9.3(b) RoP) against a first-instance order refusing security for costs. The request was too unspecified and insufficiently substantiated to justify shortening deadlines at this stage. |
| 2024-05-21 | ACT_589207/2023 | Munich LD | Application for provisional measures | Preliminary injunction | PI granted | The Munich Local Division granted Dyson Technology Ltd. a preliminary injunction against SharkNinja Germany GmbH and SharkNinja Europe Limited, prohibiting them from offering or supplying certain handheld vacuum cleaners (models IW3611EU, IW3611DE, IW1611EU, IW1611DE, BU1120DE) in Germany and France that infringe EP 2 043 492, subject to Dyson commencing main proceedings within 31 calendar days or 20 working days. |
| 2024-05-16 | UPC_CFI_372/2023 | Paris CD | Revocation Action | Procedural | Costs only | The Paris Central Division addressed allocation of costs following the patent proprietor's immediate surrender of EP 3 170 639 B1 in response to a revocation action, holding it is generally unfair to impose costs on a proprietor who immediately surrenders when confronted with new prior art, particularly where no prior warning notice was required. |
| 2024-05-14 | UPC_CFI_241/2023 | Milan LD | Generic Order | Procedural | Procedural only | Procedural order (in Italian) requiring parties to submit a summary of issues to be addressed at the forthcoming Interim Conference and to notify the court of attendees' names and capacities. The order also addressed the balance between the transparency principle and the right to protect confidential information, particularly regarding costs information in a case where a settlement may have been under discussion. |
| 2024-05-13 | APL_8/2024 | Court of Appeal | Appeal RoP220.1 | motionName.appeal_decision | PI denied | Order by the Court of Appeal (UPC_CoA_1/2024, 13 May 2024) dismissing VusionGroup SA's (formerly SES-imagotag) appeal against the first-instance refusal of a preliminary injunction based on unitary patent EP 3 883 277 (electronic shelf labels). The CoA found that Hanshow's products do not fall within claim 1 because the antenna is not positioned further towards the front face than the circuit board as required; VusionGroup was ordered to bear costs. |
| 2024-05-13 | UPC_CoA_1/2024 | Court of Appeal | Appeal RoP220.1 | — | PI denied | Order of the Court of Appeal (Panel 1, with technical judges) dismissing the appeal by VusionGroup SA (formerly SES-imagotag SA) against the Munich Local Division's rejection of its application for provisional measures against Hanshow Technology and related entities regarding electronic shelf labels. The Court of Appeal, applying a balance-of-probabilities standard, found that none of Hanshow's contested products fell within the scope of protection of claim 1 of EP 3 883 277, because the antenna was not positioned more to the front of the label than the printed circuit board as required by the claim. The court held that claim features must always be interpreted in light of the claim as a whole. The appeal was rejected and the appellant was ordered to bear the costs of appeal. |
| 2024-05-10 | UPC_APP_3514/2024 | Paris CD | Preliminary objection | motionName.jurisdictional | Dismissed | The Paris Central Division dismissed a preliminary objection by Tandem Diabetes Care contesting the UPC's jurisdiction based on an alleged violation of a standstill agreement before filing the revocation action by Roche Diabetes Care, ruling that breach of a standstill agreement does not constitute grounds for challenging the court's jurisdiction. |
| 2024-05-08 | UPC_APP_11857/2024 | Munich LD | Preliminary objection | motionName.jurisdictional | Dismissed | The Munich Local Division partially dismissed preliminary objections filed by Volkswagen, Audi, and Texas Instruments in infringement proceedings by Network System Technologies LLC concerning EP1552669, rejecting challenges to standing, admissibility of pre-2022 damages, and the sufficiency of the infringement read, while deferring jurisdiction objections relating to UK-territory claims to a later stage. |
| 2024-05-08 | UPC_APP_11863/2024 | Munich LD | Preliminary objection | motionName.jurisdictional | Dismissed | The Munich Local Division partially dismissed preliminary objections filed by Volkswagen, Audi, and Texas Instruments in infringement proceedings by Network System Technologies LLC concerning EP1552399, rejecting challenges on substantially the same grounds as in the parallel proceedings concerning EP1552669. |
| 2024-05-08 | UPC_APP_11845/2024 | Munich LD | Preliminary objection | motionName.jurisdictional | Dismissed | The Munich Local Division partially dismissed preliminary objections filed by Volkswagen, Audi, and Texas Instruments in infringement proceedings by Network System Technologies LLC concerning EP1875683, rejecting challenges on substantially the same grounds as in the parallel proceedings concerning EP1552669 and EP1552399. |
| 2024-05-08 | UPC_APP_11850/2024 | Munich LD | Preliminary objection | motionName.jurisdictional | Procedural only | The Local Division Munich resolved preliminary objections filed by Volkswagen, Audi AG, and Texas Instruments defendants in NST's infringement action concerning EP 1 875 683, rejecting jurisdiction and standing challenges and finding that a detailed infringement read on one example device is sufficient at the pleading stage to cover a list of accused devices. |
| 2024-05-08 | UPC_APP_11854/2024 | Munich LD | Preliminary objection | motionName.jurisdictional | Procedural only | Order by Munich Local Division (UPC_CFI_513/2023, 8 May 2024) dismissing preliminary objections by Volkswagen AG, Audi AG and Texas Instruments entities in NST's infringement action for EP 1 552 669 B1. Substantially the same as the companion order in UPC_CFI_514/2023: opt-out withdrawal was valid; NST had standing to sue including for pre-assignment infringement. |
| 2024-05-08 | UPC_APP_11795/2024 | Munich LD | Preliminary objection | motionName.jurisdictional | Procedural only | Munich Local Division order (full panel, Zigann presiding) on preliminary objections by Volkswagen AG, Audi AG, Texas Instruments Inc. and TI Deutschland GmbH, and on requests under R. 361 RoP, in infringement proceedings by Network System Technologies LLC concerning EP 1 552 399. The R. 361 requests to declare the action manifestly inadmissible or unfounded were dismissed. The preliminary objections (R. 19 RoP) were partially dismissed with the remaining jurisdictional issue deferred to the main proceedings. Leave to appeal granted. Costs deferred to main proceedings. |
| 2024-05-08 | UPC_APP_11791/2024 | Munich LD | Preliminary objection | motionName.jurisdictional | Procedural only | Munich Local Division order (full panel, Pichlmaier as judge-rapporteur) on preliminary objections and R. 361 requests by Volkswagen AG, Audi AG, Texas Instruments Inc. and TI Deutschland GmbH in a second infringement action by Network System Technologies LLC concerning EP 1 875 683. Identical in substance to the parallel case (UPC_APP_12101/2024): R. 361 requests dismissed; preliminary objections partially dismissed with residual jurisdiction/assignment issues deferred to main proceedings. Leave to appeal granted. Costs deferred. |
| 2024-05-08 | UPC_APP_11861/2024 | Munich LD | Preliminary objection | motionName.jurisdictional | Procedural only | Munich Local Division dismissed preliminary objections (Rule 19 RoP) and requests to declare the action manifestly bound to fail (Rule 361 RoP) filed by Volkswagen AG, Audi AG, Texas Instruments Incorporated, and Texas Instruments Deutschland GmbH against Network System Technologies LLC's infringement action concerning EP 1 552 399. The court held that NST has standing to sue based on the patent assignments; infringement allegations need only be detailed for one exemplary device at this stage; the jurisdiction objection relating to UK/TI damages claims was deferred to the main proceedings; leave to appeal was granted. |
| 2024-05-08 | UPC_CFI_513/2023 | Munich LD | Preliminary objection | — | Procedural only | Order partially rejecting Network System Technologies' preliminary objection against Texas Instruments in an infringement action. The court also rejected Texas Instruments' request to declare the action manifestly bound to fail (Rule 361 RoP). Leave to appeal granted for both parts. |
| 2024-05-08 | UPC_CFI_513/2023 | Munich LD | Generic application | — | Procedural only | Order partially rejecting a preliminary objection and rejecting request to declare action manifestly bound to fail (Rule 361 RoP) in Network System Technologies v. Texas Instruments infringement action. Leave to appeal granted. (Related companion order to FCEF24C01B7B5A6ED33BAD356F867213_en.pdf.) |
| 2024-05-06 | UPC_CFI_440/2023 | Paris LD | Generic Order | Procedural | Procedural only | Order of the Paris Local Division (full panel) on several procedural applications filed by Photon Wave Co. Ltd. (intervener/third party supporter of defendant Laser Components SAS) and Seoul Viosys Co. Ltd. (claimant) in an infringement action concerning EP 3 404 726. The court: (1) held that Photon Wave had not filed its revocation brief within the deadline set for the party it supports, and rejected its application for extension of that deadline; (2) rejected Photon Wave's request to change the language of proceedings from French to another language, holding that neither the nationality of a party's representative nor of the intervener justifies a language change; (3) rejected Photon Wave's request for an autonomous revocation brief on the basis that an intervener cannot develop claims contrary to those of the party it supports; (4) rejected Seoul Viosys's request for postponement of its reply deadline. |
| 2024-05-02 | UPC_APP_8708/2024 | Paris CD | Preliminary objection | motionName.jurisdictional | Dismissed | Paris Central Division order rejecting Mala Technologies' preliminary objection to the jurisdiction of the UPC over Nokia's revocation action (ACT_595045/2023) concerning EP 2 044 709. Mala Technologies (defendant/patent proprietor) had argued the UPC lacked jurisdiction and sought a stay pending a German Federal Court of Justice decision (X ZR 6/24) in parallel revocation appeal proceedings. All requests were rejected: the preliminary objection was dismissed, the stay applications were denied, and the request to extend the deadline for the defence to revocation was also rejected. Leave to appeal was granted given the fundamental issues about the relationship between UPC proceedings and national courts. |
| 2024-05-01 | UPC_CFI_379/2023 | The Hague LD | Generic application | — | Withdrawn | The Hague Local Division (full panel) declared the infringement action by Keestrack N.V. against Geha Laverman B.V. concerning EP 3 713 672 closed following withdrawal of the action with the consent of the defendant. Each party bears its own costs. A 60% reimbursement of the fixed court fee was ordered pursuant to R. 370.11 RoP as the withdrawal occurred before the end of the written procedure. |
| 2024-04-30 | ACT_590953/2023 | Dusseldorf LD | Application for provisional measures | Preliminary injunction | PI granted | Same order as ORD_23580/2024 / UPC_CFI_463/2023 (Düsseldorf, 30 April 2024) – duplicate document. 10x Genomics obtained a preliminary injunction against Curio Bioscience restraining sale of infringing spatial transcriptomics arrays (EP 2 697 391) in Germany, France, and Sweden, subject to a EUR 2,000,000 security. |
| 2024-04-30 | UPC_CFI_463/2023 | Dusseldorf LD | Application for provisional measures | Preliminary injunction | PI granted | The Düsseldorf Local Division granted a preliminary injunction against Curio Bioscience Inc. prohibiting it from offering, marketing, using, importing or storing arrays for spatially localised nucleic acid detection in Germany, France and Sweden, finding prima facie infringement of EP 2 697 391 B1 (owned by 10x Genomics). Both parties were ordered to pay each other interim costs of EUR 100,000. The injunction was conditional on 10x Genomics providing security of EUR 2,000,000. 10x Genomics' application for security for costs from the defendant was rejected. |
| 2024-04-30 | UPC_CFI_218/2023 | Mannheim LD | Generic application | — | Procedural only | The Mannheim Local Division issued an order in Panasonic Holdings Corporation's infringement action against Xiaomi entities concerning EP 3 096 315, ruling on a production of licence agreements application (R. 190 RoP). The court ordered disclosure of certain licence agreements (with redactions permitted for irrelevant passages) where the parties holding those agreements had not provided valid reasons to refuse consent to production. |
| 2024-04-23 | UPC_CFI_515/2023 | Munich LD | Generic application | — | Dismissed | Munich Local Division dismissed the applications by Volkswagen AG, Audi AG, Texas Instruments Inc., and Texas Instruments Deutschland GmbH requesting the Court to order Network System Technologies LLC (NST) to provide security for legal costs under Art. 69.4 UPCA and R.158 RoP. The Court found that the applications did not meet the legal standards for ordering such security. |
| 2024-04-17 | APL_12116/2024 | Court of Appeal | Appeal RoP220.1 | motionName.appeal_decision | Procedural only | The UPC Court of Appeal upheld the President of the Court of First Instance's refusal to change the language of proceedings from German to English in 10x Genomics' provisional measures application against Curio Bioscience concerning EP2697391, finding that the interests of the parties were balanced and the defendant's position was the decisive factor. |
| 2024-04-17 | APL_12116/2024 | Court of Appeal | Appeal RoP220.1 | motionName.appeal_decision | Procedural only | Court of Appeal set aside the President of the CFI's order refusing to change the language of proceedings from German to English in the provisional measures case before the Düsseldorf Local Division. The CoA held that, considering all relevant circumstances (Curio Bioscience is a US company with no connection to Germany, the patent was granted in English, the technology field predominantly uses English), the language of proceedings shall be English. The impugned order of 26 February 2024 was set aside and the language changed to English. |
| 2024-04-11 | UPC_APP_12563/2024 | Paris LD | Preliminary objection | motionName.jurisdictional | Procedural only | The Paris Local Division rejected multiple defendants' (ARM group) preliminary objections to jurisdiction, ruling that where one defendant has its residence within the territorial scope of the local division, Art. 33(1)(b) UPCA applies regardless of where other defendants are based, and that belonging to the same corporate group with related commercial activities constitutes a sufficient 'commercial relationship' for multi-defendant proceedings. |
| 2024-04-11 | UPC_APP_9340/2024 | Dusseldorf LD | Preliminary objection | motionName.jurisdictional | Procedural only | Procedural order from the Düsseldorf Local Division (UPC_CFI_504/2023) on a preliminary objection under R. 21.2 RoP concerning the language of proceedings. The order addressed service of the Statement of Claim on multiple defendants in the Roche Diabetes Care v. Tandem Diabetes Care and others case concerning EP 1 970 677. |
| 2024-04-11 | UPC_APP_9705/2024 | Dusseldorf LD | Preliminary objection | motionName.jurisdictional | Procedural only | Düsseldorf Local Division dismissed preliminary objections concerning the language of proceedings in infringement case UPC_CFI_504/2023 (patent EP 1 970 677, glucose monitoring device). The court upheld German as the language of proceedings as chosen by claimant Roche, rejecting defendants' requests (VitalAire, Air Liquide Healthcare Nederland, Dinno Santé) to change the language to English. The defendants' preliminary objection was also ruled out of time due to a failure to deliver the objection papers to the Sub-Registry during its opening hours. |
| 2024-04-10 | UPC_CoA_404/2023 | Court of Appeal | Generic Order | motionName.appeal_decision | Procedural only | Decision of the Court of Appeal dated 10 April 2024 concerning a request by a member of the public for access to written pleadings and evidence under R. 262.1(b) RoP in the Ocado v. Autostore proceedings. The CoA ruled on the composition of its panel (no technically qualified judges required for purely non-technical matters under Art. 9(1) UPCA), on the standard for public access requests (balancing public interest, confidentiality and personal data protection), and distinguished R. 262.1(b) requests from R. 262.3 applications. The order deals with procedural matters of public register access; no substantive patent ruling was made. |
| 2024-04-05 | UPC_CFI_263/2023 | Paris CD | Revocation Action | Procedural | Procedural only | The judge-rapporteur issued an interim conference order setting out procedural directions for the revocation action concerning EP 3 414 708, including discussion of the validity of the priority claim and allowable form of amendments; no substantive ruling on patentability was made. |
| 2024-04-03 | APL_588422/2023 | Court of Appeal | Appeal RoP220.2 | motionName.appeal_decision | Procedural only | The Court of Appeal rejected Juul Labs International Inc.'s appeal against first-instance orders allowing NJOY Netherlands B.V. to rectify the name of a party (Juul Labs Inc. to Juul Labs International Inc.) in five sets of revocation proceedings, and held that no costs order would be issued on appeal since the appeal was not a final decision concluding the action. |
| 2024-04-03 | APL_588423/2023 | Court of Appeal | Appeal RoP220.2 | motionName.appeal_decision | Procedural only | Order by the Court of Appeal (Panel 1a, 3 April 2024) in five consolidated appeals (UPC_CoA_433-438/2023) upholding first-instance orders allowing NJOY Netherlands B.V. to rectify the name of the defendant in five revocation actions from Juul Labs, Inc. to Juul Labs International, Inc. (the registered patent proprietor). The CoA also clarified that costs are not awarded at appellate stage when the CoA decision does not conclude the action (R. 242.1 RoP). |
| 2024-04-03 | APL_588426/2023 | Court of Appeal | Appeal RoP220.2 | motionName.appeal_decision | Dismissed | Court of Appeal order rejecting Juul Labs International's appeal against the Court of First Instance order allowing rectification of the defendant's name in five revocation actions filed by NJOY Netherlands B.V. (originally naming Juul Labs, Inc. instead of registered proprietor Juul Labs International, Inc.). The Court of Appeal held the rectification was permissible since the appellant was not unreasonably prejudiced. No costs order was made in this interlocutory appeal, to be deferred to the final merits decision. Appeal rejected. |
| 2024-04-03 | APL_588420/2023 | Court of Appeal | Appeal RoP220.2 | motionName.appeal_decision | Dismissed | Court of Appeal dismissed Juul Labs International Inc.'s appeal against five first-instance orders allowing NJOY Netherlands B.V. to rectify the incorrectly stated defendant name in five revocation actions (EP 3 498 115, EP 3 504 990, EP 3 504 989, EP 3 504 991, EP 3 430 921). The court held that despite the naming error, it should have been clear to the appellant that the actions were directed against it as the registered proprietor. No cost order was made as the appeal did not conclude the revocation actions. |
| 2024-04-03 | UPC_CoA_437/2023 | Court of Appeal | Appeal RoP220.2 | — | Dismissed | The Court of Appeal (Panel 1a) dismissed the appeal by Juul Labs International Inc. against the Paris Central Division's order rectifying the party name in five revocation actions brought by NJOY Netherlands B.V. The CoA held that despite the incorrect original naming of Juul Labs Inc. (instead of Juul Labs International Inc., the registered patent proprietor), the appellant should have known the actions were directed against it, and the rectification did not cause unreasonable prejudice. No costs order was made in the appeal as it did not constitute a final decision concluding the actions. |
| 2024-03-21 | APL_595643/2023 | Court of Appeal | Request for a discretionary review (RoP 220.3) | motionName.appeal_decision | Procedural only | The Court of Appeal, on a request for discretionary review (R.220.3 RoP), ruled on the correct sequence of procedural remedies against decisions of the judge-rapporteur on preliminary objections, clarifying the relationship between panel review (R.333.1 RoP) and appeal. The review request was addressed on its merits under applicable procedural rules. |
| 2024-03-21 | UPC_CoA_486/2023 | Court of Appeal | Request for a discretionary review (RoP 220.3) | motionName.appeal_decision | Procedural only | Order of the Court of Appeal (Panel 2) on a request for discretionary review under Rule 220.3 RoP. The appeal arose from a preliminary objection ruling in Huawei v. Netgear. The Court of Appeal laid down important procedural headnotes: (1) case management decisions of the judge-rapporteur cannot be directly appealed but must first be reviewed by the panel under Rule 333.1 RoP; (2) the judge-rapporteur's decision to deal with the preliminary objection in the main proceedings is such a case management decision; (3) rejection of a preliminary objection may be appealed with leave under Rule 220.2 RoP, optionally bypassing the panel review. The Court addressed the admissibility and scope of discretionary review. |
| 2024-03-18 | UPC_CFI_75/2023 | Munich CD | Revocation Action | Procedural | Procedural only | The Munich Central Division judge-rapporteur issued an interim conference order (R. 105.5 RoP) in the revocation action brought by Astellas Institute against Healios, Riken, and Osaka University concerning EP 3 056 563. The order recorded decisions taken at the interim conference to prepare for the oral hearing, including procedural directions on evidence and scheduling. |
| 2024-03-18 | UPC_CFI_80/2023 | Munich CD | Revocation Action | Procedural | Procedural only | Order following the interim conference (R. 105.5 RoP) in the revocation action by Astellas Institute for Regenerative Medicine against Healios K.K. and Osaka University (EP 3 056 564) at the Munich Section of the Central Division. The court confirmed the oral hearing would proceed as planned and admitted a second expert declaration (D21) conditionally, giving the defendant limited time to reply. |
| 2024-03-14 | UPC_CFI_440/2023 | Paris LD | Generic application | Procedural | Procedural only | Procedural order (in French) granting Laser Components SAS an extension of the deadline for filing its Statement of Defence in the infringement action brought by Seoul Viosys. The extension was granted due to technical difficulties experienced by the third-party intervener (Photon Wave Co.) in the CMS system and the anticipated filing of a separate invalidity counterclaim requiring coordination. |
| 2024-03-13 | UPC_CFI_354/2023 | Munich LD | Application for provisional measures | — | Settled | The Munich Local Division issued a decision confirming the settlement between the parties in provisional measures proceedings brought by Steindl Krantechnik against BEHA Bau- und Forstgreiftechnik concerning EP 3 287 315. Following the oral hearing of 30 January 2024, the parties reached a preliminary agreement and subsequently filed a settlement text under R. 365 RoP. The court confirmed the settlement, ordered its details to be kept confidential (R. 365.2 RoP), and noted that no separate costs decision was required as costs were regulated in the settlement. |
| 2024-03-11 | APL_4881/2024 | Court of Appeal | Appeal RoP220.2 | motionName.appeal_decision | Procedural only | The Court of Appeal partially upheld Netgear's appeal against the Munich Local Division's order concerning deadlines following Huawei's extension of its infringement action to a second patent, setting the new time limit for Netgear's statement of defence (and any counterclaim for revocation) to 18 April 2024 instead of 11 March 2024, on the basis that due process requires defendants to receive the same full response period as for a new action. |
| 2024-03-11 | APL_4881/2024 | Court of Appeal | Appeal RoP220.2 | motionName.appeal_decision | Procedural only | Order from the Court of Appeal (UPC_CoA_36/2024) on Netgear's appeal against the Munich Local Division's order permitting Huawei to expand its infringement action to add EP 3 678 321 alongside EP 3 611 989. The appeal was withdrawn during the interim conference after Huawei agreed to grant Netgear a three-month response period from the original first-instance panel order. The Court ruled on the principle that when a new patent is added by way of case expansion, the defendant must receive the same response period as if a new action had been filed. |
| 2024-03-11 | APL_5395/2024 | Court of Appeal | Appeal RoP220.2 | motionName.appeal_decision | Procedural only | The Court of Appeal (second panel) set aside the Munich Local Division's order separating the action based on EP 3 678 321 and established that when a new patent is added to pending proceedings under R. 263 RoP, the defendant must receive the same response time as for a new action. |
| 2024-03-11 | APL_5395/2024 | Court of Appeal | Appeal RoP220.2 | motionName.appeal_decision | Procedural only | Court of Appeal procedural order on an appeal against a first-instance order that had severed an amended/expanded infringement claim relating to EP 3678321 from the main action. The appeal concerned the deadline for filing a statement of defence following an amendment of the claim (R. 263 RoP). The Court of Appeal held that, as a matter of due process, when a new patent is added by way of an amended claim, the defendant must be given the same period to respond as would apply if a fresh action had been filed. |
| 2024-03-11 | UPC_APP_8500/2024 | Dusseldorf LD | Application for provisional measures | Procedural | Procedural only | The Düsseldorf Local Division issued a confidentiality protection order under R.262A RoP establishing principles for granting natural persons access to protected information, holding that access cannot be denied solely because a named person works in the relevant technical field. |
| 2024-03-11 | UPC_CoA_335/2023 | Court of Appeal | Appeal RoP220.1 | motionName.appeal_decision | PI denied | 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. |