Rainer Friedrich
7 IP cases indexed. Covers patent matters.
Cases Presided Over
7 cases indexed | Page 1 of 1
Sanofi Biotechnology SAS v.Amgen N.V.
This UPC Court of Appeal decision concerns the withdrawal of an appeal in a pharmaceutical infringement case (Sanofi/Regeneron v. Amgen). Although the parties successfully withdrew the proceedings, citing an agreement and consent from all parties, the court strictly ruled on the financial aspects. The request for reimbursement of court fees was dismissed because the withdrawal occurred after the written procedure had been closed, demonstrating the Court's adherence to procedural timelines.
Amgen N.V. v.Regeneron Pharmaceuticals Inc.
This UPC Court of Appeal decision concerns the withdrawal of an appeal filed by Amgen against a prior ruling in infringement proceedings. The case, involving major biotech players like Regeneron and Sanofi, was ultimately withdrawn because the parties reached an out-of-court settlement. Although the court permitted the procedural withdrawal, it strictly denied Amgen's request for reimbursement of court fees, highlighting the precise application of UPC Rules of Procedure regarding timing and fee recovery.
Merz Therapeutics GmbH v.Viatris Santé
In a procedural order concerning provisional measures (UPC_CFI_697/2025), the Court addressed the disparity in the length of written submissions between Merz Therapeutics and Viatris Santé. Recognizing that the extensive 473-page objection filed by Viatris was disproportionate to the summary nature of the proceedings, the Judge Rapporteur intervened. The Court imposed strict page limits—70 pages for Viatris's summary objection and 40 pages for Merz's reply—to ensure procedural economy while maintaining fairness.
NanoString Technologies Europe Limited v.President and Fellows of Harvard College
In this appeal case, NanoString Technologies sought to withdraw its revocation action against Harvard University concerning EP 2 794 928. The Court of Appeal granted the withdrawal, noting that Harvard had not demonstrated a legitimate interest in continuing the proceedings after being given an opportunity to respond. This decision effectively closed the legal dispute and resulted in the release of NanoString's security deposit.
NanoString Technologies Inc. v.10x Genomics, Inc.
This UPC appellate decision addresses the critical interplay between preliminary injunctions, their subsequent revocation, and the enforceability of associated penalty orders (Zwangsgelder). The court established that because initial injunctions are generally retroactive, overturning them eliminates the legal foundation for any coercive fine order. This ruling provides significant clarity on risk management for patentees relying on provisional measures in UPC proceedings.
NanoString Technologies Inc. v.10x Genomics, Inc.
This UPC Court of Appeal decision addresses a procedural correction in an ongoing provisional measures case involving NanoString Technologies and 10x Genomics concerning EP 4108782. The core ruling clarifies the established principles for interpreting European patent claims under Article 69 EPC. It emphasizes that interpretation must be holistic, considering the description and drawings alongside the literal claim language to ensure a balanced outcome between inventor protection and third-party certainty.
10x Genomics, Inc. v.NanoString Technologies Inc.
This UPC Court of Appeal decision addressed a request to suspend infringement proceedings due to the insolvency filing (Chapter 11) of one of the defendants. The court rejected the suspension request, establishing a key principle that procedural efficiency and fairness outweigh automatic suspension when the bankruptcy occurs after the oral hearing and the case is ready for judgment. This ruling provides clarity on how UPC procedures interact with foreign insolvency laws.
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.