Rainer Friedrich
7 IP cases indexed. Covers patent matters.
Cases Presided Over
7 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, Regeneron Pharmaceuticals Inc. v.Amgen N.V., Amgen S.R.L, Amgen GmbH, Amgen B.V., Amgen S.A.S., Amgen Inc., 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.
Merz Therapeutics GmbH, Merz Pharma France, Merz Pharmaceuticals LLC v.Respondent
1 Paris Local Division UPC_CFI_697/2025 Procedural Order of the Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court delivered on 17/09/2025 APPLICANTS 1) Merz Therapeutics GmbH Eckenheimer Landstraße 100 60318 Frankfurt am Main - DE 2) Merz Pharmaceuticals LLC Unit 35/36, 6601 Six Forks Road, 4th Fl
NanoString Technologies Europe Limited v.Respondent
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
This case concerns an order by the Court of Appeal regarding coercive penalties in proceedings involving European Patent 4 108 782. The court addressed whether the setting aside of a preliminary injunction order retroactively removes the legal basis for subsequent decisions ordering payment of coercive penalties for alleged violations occurring before the setting aside. The Court of Appeal held that the setting aside of a first-instance preliminary injunction order under Art. 75(1) EPGÜ and Rule 242.1 RoP is generally retroactive, meaning the order is deemed to have had no legal effect from the beginning, thereby eliminating the legal basis for any subsequent coercive penalty decisions.
NanoString Technologies Germany GmbH, NanoString Technologies Netherlands B.V., NanoString Technologies Inc. v.10x Genomics, Inc., President and Fellows of Harvard College
This is a corrigendum order from the Court of Appeal correcting Headnote 2, paragraph 3 of a prior order dated February 26, 2024, due to an obvious incorrectness. The case concerns European Patent EP 4 108 782 and involves proceedings on provisional measures between 10x Genomics and Harvard College as applicants/appellees and NanoString Technologies entities as respondents/appellants. The corrected headnote restates the principles of patent claim interpretation under Article 69 EPC and its Protocol, clarifying that the patent claim is not merely the starting point but the decisive basis for determining the scope of protection.
10x Genomics, Inc., President and Fellows of Harvard College v.Respondent
This case concerns an appeal before the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court regarding preliminary measures for alleged infringement of European Patent EP 4 108 782. After the oral hearing on December 16, 2023, all three NanoString entities filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy in the US Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware on February 4, 2024. The applicants (10x Genomics and Harvard) requested that the proceedings be stayed due to the insolvency, and the respondents (NanoString) agreed. The Court of Appeal held that, under principles of procedural economy, cost efficiency, and fair balance of interests, the proceedings did not need to be stayed because the insolvency occurred only after the close of oral hearings and the case was 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.