Cornelis Sch
9 IP cases indexed. Covers patent matters.
Cases Presided Over
9 cases indexed | Page 1 of 1
Amgen N.V., Amgen S.R.L, Amgen GmbH, Amgen B.V., Amgen S.A.S., Amgen Inc., Amgen Europe B.V. v.Regeneron Pharmaceuticals Inc. and Sanofi Biotechnology SAS
This appeal concerned EP 3 536 712, where Amgen had appealed a decision of the Düsseldorf Local Division dismissing its counterclaim for revocation. After the written procedure was closed and an oral hearing was scheduled, the parties reached an out-of-court settlement, and Amgen applied to withdraw the appeal pursuant to R. 265 RoP, with Sanofi and Regeneron consenting. The Court of Appeal permitted the withdrawal and declared the proceedings closed, but dismissed Amgen's request for reimbursement of court fees because the withdrawal occurred after the closure of the written procedure, falling outside the scope of R. 370.9(b) RoP.
Sanofi Biotechnology SAS and Regeneron Pharmaceuticals Inc. v.Amgen N.V., Amgen S.R.L, Amgen GmbH, Amgen B.V., Amgen S.A.S., Amgen Inc., and Amgen Europe B.V.
This appeal concerned EP 3 536 712, where Sanofi and Regeneron appealed a decision of the Düsseldorf Local Division dated 13 May 2025 that dismissed their infringement action and ordered them to bear the costs. After the written procedure was closed, the appellants applied to withdraw the appeal pursuant to R. 265 RoP, indicating the parties had reached an agreement, and sought reimbursement of 50% of court fees. The Court of Appeal permitted the withdrawal, declared no cost decision necessary, but dismissed the request for reimbursement of court fees because the withdrawal occurred after the closure of the written procedure.
Guardant Health, Inc. v.Sophia Genetics SA, Sophia Genetics SAS, Sophia Genetics SRL, Sophia Genetics GmbH
Procedural order issued by the Paris Local Division of the Court of First Instance concerning an application for provisional measures filed by Guardant Health, Inc. against four Sophia Genetics entities based on four European patents. The order sets the date for the oral hearing and establishes a procedural timeline for objections and replies.
President and Fellows of Harvard College v.NanoString Technologies Europe Limited
This case concerns an appeal before the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court regarding the reimbursement of court fees following the withdrawal of an action. NanoString had brought a revocation action against Harvard's European Patent, which was revoked by the Court of First Instance. After Harvard appealed and NanoString subsequently withdrew the action, Harvard sought reimbursement of 60% of the appeal court fees. The Court of Appeal held that the action was withdrawn before the closure of the interim procedure rather than the written procedure, entitling Harvard to only 40% reimbursement.
President and Fellows of Harvard College v.NanoString Technologies Europe Limited
NanoString Technologies Europe Limited filed an action for revocation of European Patent 2 794 928 against Harvard before the Munich Section of the Central Division of the Court of First Instance. The Central Division revoked the patent entirely and ordered Harvard to bear NanoString's legal costs, prompting Harvard to appeal. After the appeal was filed, NanoString applied to withdraw the action, refrain from a cost decision, and release the security deposit of €300,000 it had previously provided.
NanoString Technologies Germany GmbH, NanoString Technologies Inc., NanoString Technologies Netherlands B.V. v.10x Genomics, Inc., President and Fellows of Harvard College
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court addressed whether the setting aside of a preliminary injunction removes the legal basis for a subsequent penalty order imposed for alleged violations of that injunction. The Court held that the setting aside of a preliminary injunction under Art. 75(1) UPCA and R. 242.1 RoP is generally retroactive, meaning the injunction is deemed to have had no legal effect from the beginning. Consequently, the Court set aside the penalty order of €100,000 imposed on NanoString, rejected 10x's applications, ordered 10x to bear the costs, and directed the Registry to refund the amount paid by NanoString.
Appellant v.Amycel LLC
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court issued a decision by default against an unnamed Appellant who had appealed an order of provisional measures issued by the Local Division The Hague concerning EP 1 993 350. The Appellant had initially declared micro-enterprise status to qualify for a reduced court fee but failed to substantiate his status as a small enterprise when ordered to do so, and did not pay the additional fees imposed. The Court denied the Appellant's requests to waive the additional fee and for legal aid, closed the appeal by default, and ordered the Appellant to bear the costs of the appeal proceedings.
NanoString Technologies Germany GmbH, NanoString Technologies Netherlands B.V. and NanoString Technologies Inc. v.10x Genomics, Inc. and President and Fellows of Harvard College
This is a corrigendum issued by the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court on 11 March 2024, correcting Headnote 2, paragraph 3 of its earlier order dated 26 February 2024 in proceedings concerning EP 4 108 782. The underlying proceedings concern an appeal against an order of the Court of First Instance (Local Chamber Munich) of 19 September 2023 in provisional measures proceedings (UPC CFI 2/2023). The corrected headnote sets out principles for the interpretation of European patent claims under Article 69 EPC in conjunction with the Protocol on its interpretation.
10x Genomics, Inc. and President and Fellows of Harvard College v.NanoString Technologies Inc., NanoString Technologies Germany GmbH, and NanoString Technologies Netherlands B.V.
This is an order from the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court concerning EP 4 108 782. After the oral hearing on 16 December 2023, all three NanoString respondents filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy in the US Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware on 4 February 2024. Both parties requested suspension of the appeal proceedings. The Court of Appeal rejected the requests, holding that under principles of procedural economy, cost efficiency, and fair balance of interests, proceedings need not be suspended under Rule 311.1 of the Rules of Procedure when a party is declared insolvent only after the close of oral hearings and the case is ready for decision.
Facing a similar IP matter?
Arctic Invent is a specialist IP firm with deep litigation expertise across India, EU, US, and UK. Our team uses data-driven strategy to build stronger cases.