Biotech — European UPC Patent Cases
93 decisions indexed
Page 1 of 4 · 93 total
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 The case, involving major biotech players like Regeneron and Sanofi, was ultimately withdrawn because the parties reached an out-of-court settlement.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.
Applicant v.Amycel, LLC
This UPC Court of Appeal decision clarifies the strict procedural requirements for applications seeking suspensive effect. The court emphasized that parties must present their full case upfront, meaning subsequent applications based on similar arguments are inadmissible. This ruling reinforces the principle of judicial efficiency and timely disclosure in complex patent litigation.
GlaxoSmithKline Biologicals SA v.Moderna et al.
In a procedural order, the UPC CFI addressed complex applications regarding claim amendments and late-filed evidence in the GSK v Moderna dispute over vaccine patents. The court granted GSK's request to amend its claims to cover new product variants (mNEXSPIKE), while simultaneously dismissing Moderna’s objections concerning the timeliness of GSK's submissions. This decision affirms the claimant's right to adapt its case and respond fully to the defendant's arguments, setting a clear procedural path for the ongoing infringement and validity proceedings.
Guardant Health, Inc. v.Sophia Genetics SA, Sophia Genetics SAS, Sophia Genetics SRL, Sophia Genetics GmbH
This UPC Court of Appeal decision addressed an application for suspensive effect filed by Guardant Health against Sophia Genetics concerning a provisional measures proceeding. Guardant sought to suspend the interim award of EUR 400,000 in costs granted by the Court of First Instance (CFI). The court ultimately rejected this request, holding that the appeal lacked the necessary exceptional circumstances to override the general rule that appeals do not have suspensive effect. This case reinforces the strict procedural requirements for obtaining suspensive effect in UPC proceedings.
GlaxoSmithKline Biologicals SA v.Moderna et al
In this procedural order, the UPC CFI addressed applications regarding claim amendments and late-filed evidence in a high-stakes biotech dispute between GSK and Moderna. The court granted GSK's request to amend its claims to cover new vaccine variants like mNEXSPIKE, recognizing the evolving nature of the technology. Simultaneously, the court rejected Moderna’s attempt to exclude crucial supporting arguments and exhibits from the proceedings, affirming the claimant's right to respond fully to the defense.
10x Genomics, Inc. v.Curio Bioscience Inc.
This UPC decision addresses a complex cost determination dispute arising from an infringement case involving EP 2 697 391 B1. The core issue was whether the cost ceilings applicable to the initial Provisional Measures proceedings and the subsequent main infringement action should be combined or treated separately. The Court firmly rejected the Claimant's attempt to create a unified ceiling, reinforcing the principle that separate proceedings maintain distinct financial caps. This ruling is highly significant for patent practitioners as it clarifies the boundaries of cost recovery when litigation spans multiple UPC stages (PI vs. Merits). It mandates meticulous tracking and separation of costs to ensure compliance with individual proceeding ceilings.
Guardant Health, Inc. v.Sophia Genetics SA
Guardant Health sought provisional measures against Sophia Genetics regarding the alleged infringement of four liquid biopsy patents by their MSK-DDM test. The UPC Court rejected the application for provisional measures, citing insufficient demonstration of infringement and procedural issues such as unreasonable delay and improper use of 'added matter.' Crucially, the court also issued an interim costs award, ordering Guardant Health to pay Sophia Genetics 400,000 euros.
Applicant v.Amycel, LLC
This UPC Court of Appeal decision addresses an application for suspensive effect filed by a defendant against a preliminary injunction and interim damage award issued by the Court of First Instance. The Applicant sought to halt the enforcement of the CFI's orders, arguing that certain actions (like website publication) were irreversible and that the financial impact was severe. However, the Court rejected the request, emphasizing that an appeal must demonstrate exceptional circumstances to override the general rule against suspensive effect.
GXD-Bio Corporation v.Myriad International GmbH (and associated Myriad entities)
In a significant decision, the UPC Local Division Munich revoked European Patent EP 3 346 403. The patent covered methods for quantifying gene expression in breast cancer tissue using RT-PCR and normalization to endogenous reference genes. Despite GXD-Bio Corporation's infringement claims against Myriad International GmbH and its subsidiaries regarding their EndoPredict-Test, the court dismissed the infringement action following the revocation of the patent. This ruling underscores the dual nature of UPC proceedings, where a successful counterclaim for revocation can immediately extinguish an associated infringement claim.
GXD-Bio Corporation v.Myriad International GmbH (and associated Myriad entities)
In a significant decision, the UPC Local Division Munich revoked European Patent EP 3 346 403, which covered methods for quantifying gene expression in breast cancer tissue. The patent holder, GXD-Bio Corporation, had sued Myriad International GmbH and its subsidiaries for infringement, while the defendants filed a counterclaim for revocation. The court ultimately sided with the defendants on the revocation claim, invalidating the patent across all relevant territories. This case highlights the dual risk inherent in UPC proceedings: an infringement suit can be defeated by a successful revocation defense.
Advanced Cell Diagnostics, Inc. v.Molecular Instruments, Inc.
In a significant decision regarding advanced diagnostics technology, the UPC Court of First Instance addressed both an infringement claim and a counterclaim for patent revocation involving RNAscope technology. The court dismissed the main infringement action brought by Advanced Cell Diagnostics, Inc., finding no grounds for infringement. Crucially, the court also rejected the request to revoke the patents (EP1910572 and EP2500439), thereby confirming their validity. This ruling provides clarity on the scope of protection for specialized biotech methods in the UPC.
Bruker Spatial Biology, Inc. v.10x Genomics, Inc.
This UPC Court of Appeal decision addressed a procedural dispute concerning the costs associated with an application for damages/compensation. Bruker appealed the limitation on the reimbursement of court fees related to its request to lay open books, arguing that such proceedings should not incur separate fees. The Court firmly upheld the requirement for Bruker to pay both fixed and value-based fees, confirming that compensation determination is a distinct quantum proceeding under the RoP. This ruling clarifies the financial obligations parties face when seeking damages or compensation in UPC litigation.
Guardant Health, Inc. v.Sophia Genetics SA; Sophia Genetics SAS; Sophia Genetics SRL; Sophia Genetics GmbH
Guardant Health, Inc. filed an application for provisional measures against the various Sophia Genetics entities concerning four European patents (EP 3766986 et al.). Since the defendants failed to provide legal representation promptly, the UPC Court of First Instance issued a procedural order setting the date for an oral hearing on December 12, 2025. This decision highlights the UPC's commitment to rapid case management in urgent provisional measures proceedings.
Arbutus Biopharma Corporation v.Moderna, Inc.
This procedural order in the UPC case involving Arbutus Biopharma Corporation against Moderna addressed extensive jurisdictional challenges raised by the large group of Moderna entities. Moderna argued that several subsidiaries lacked sufficient domicile or connection to the UPC territory for the court to exercise jurisdiction. The Court rejected these objections, confirming its competence based on established connectivity principles (e.g., co-defendants in the same country). This decision clears the path for the main infringement proceedings concerning Spikevax.
Sanofi Biotechnologies SAS v.Amgen Inc.
In a procedural order, the UPC Local Division in Düsseldorf stayed infringement proceedings concerning EP 4 252 857. The stay was granted because the issues raised in this case are substantially identical to those currently under appeal regarding patent EP 3 536 712. This decision prioritizes judicial efficiency and proper administration of justice, preventing redundant litigation while respecting fundamental rights.
10x Genomics, Inc. v.Curio Bioscience Inc.
In a procedural order concerning confidential information, the Düsseldorf Local Division of the UPC restricted access to certain documents submitted by Curio Bioscience Inc. (Defendant) during cost proceedings against 10x Genomics, Inc. (Claimant). The court applied Art. 58 UPCA and R. 262A RoP to protect trade secrets within the litigation process. This ruling reinforces the UPC's commitment to balancing the right to a fair trial with the protection of sensitive commercial information.
10x Genomics, Inc. v.Curio Bioscience Inc.
In a procedural order concerning cost proceedings, the Düsseldorf Local Division of the UPC granted protection for confidential information submitted by 10x Genomics against Curio Bioscience. The court ruled that specific cost items were indeed trade secrets and restricted access to them. This decision reinforces the practical application of Art. 58 UPCA, balancing the need for confidentiality with the right to an effective remedy in complex litigation.
Moderna, Inc. v.Arbutus Biopharma Corporation
In a significant procedural ruling, the UPC Local Division issued an R.262A Order in the infringement proceedings between Moderna and Arbutus Biopharma Corporation. The order formalizes a detailed confidentiality regime designed to protect trade secrets related to Moderna's Spikevax® and mRESVIA® products. This decision is crucial for biotech companies, demonstrating how the UPC facilitates the protection of sensitive manufacturing data during litigation.
Alexion Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v.Samsung Bioepis NL B.V.
This UPC decision addressed a cost claim filed by Samsung Bioepis against Alexion Pharmaceuticals following the dismissal and rejection of provisional measures proceedings. The court found that while the overall application was admissible, several elements of the claimed costs were unreasonable or unsupported by evidence. Key adjustments included limiting travel accommodation reimbursement based on the actual arrival time at the hearing location.
QIAGEN Sciences, LLC v.bioMérieux S.A.
In this procedural order, the UPC Local Division in Düsseldorf addressed a request for an extension of time related to confidential information protection. The Claimant, QIAGEN Sciences, LLC, sought more time to respond to the Defendants' Statement of Defence and Counterclaim for revocation. The Court granted the extension, emphasizing that statutory deadlines must be adjusted when access to critical, unredacted evidence is delayed.
BioNTech SE v.Promosome LLC
This UPC Order addressed a request for protection of confidential information filed by the BioNTech group against Promosome LLC and The Scripps Research Institute in an infringement action. The Court found that the requested confidentiality protections were redundant because the relevant documents and information were already covered by a pre-existing Confidentiality Order from March 2025. This decision reinforces the principle that existing protective measures within the UPC framework remain valid even if new applications are filed.
QIAGEN Sciences, LLC v.bioMérieux S.A., bioMérieux Deutschland GmbH
This procedural order addresses the critical issue of protecting trade secrets within a high-stakes UPC infringement and revocation action between QIAGEN Sciences, LLC and bioMérieux S.A. The Court meticulously balanced the need for transparency with the imperative to protect sensitive commercial information, particularly regarding peptide sequences and analytical results. By granting specific confidentiality classifications and access restrictions, the ruling sets a strong precedent for managing proprietary data in complex biotech litigation before the UPC.
10x Genomics, Inc. v.Curio Bioscience, Inc.
10x Genomics sued Curio Bioscience for infringing its patent covering spatial detection of nucleic acids using array technology. After a detailed examination by the Düsseldorf Local Division, the court issued a mixed ruling. While infringement was found for certain claims (like Claim 14), the core claim (Claim 1) was not infringed. The action resulted in partial success for 10x Genomics, setting out specific financial and operational parameters for future enforcement.
Arbutus Biopharma Corporation v.Moderna, Inc.
In a complex biotech patent dispute involving Arbutus Biopharma Corporation and numerous Moderna entities, the UPC issued a procedural order in June 2025. The defendants sought to challenge prior case management orders and preliminary objections raised by the claimants across two infringement actions (UPC_CFI_191/2025 and UPC_CFI_192/2025). The court granted the claimants a week to respond, indicating that the core substantive issues remain pending while procedural challenges are addressed.
Genevant Sciences GmbH v.Moderna, Inc.
This procedural order addressed requests from Moderna to rectify previous court orders concerning the deadlines for filing Preliminary Objections (PO). The UPC Court of First Instance found that the dates of service mentioned in the original PO Order contained clerical errors. By correcting these dates, the court confirmed that all defendants, including various international Moderna entities, had filed their preliminary objections timely and were therefore admissible to defend themselves in the main infringement proceedings.
BioMarin Pharmaceutical Inc. v.Ascendis Pharma A/S, Ascendis Pharma Growth Disorders A/S
This procedural order in the BioMarin v Ascendis Pharma case sets critical dates for the ongoing infringement and revocation proceedings concerning EP patent 3 175 863. The court scheduled an interim conference for January 9, 2026, and a full oral hearing for March 18, 2026. Furthermore, the panel agreed to allocate a technically qualified judge in biotechnology, signaling the move toward substantive examination of the complex biotech patent.
Arbutus Biopharma Corporation v.Moderna Biotech UK Limited (and all Moderna group entities)
This UPC Procedural Order addressed preliminary objections raised by the Moderna group against Arbutus Biopharma Corporation's infringement claims concerning two biotech patents (EP2279254 and EP4241767). Moderna challenged the Court's jurisdiction, particularly regarding long-arm jurisdiction for various international subsidiaries. The Hague Local Division largely rejected these objections, confirming its competence to hear the case. This ruling is significant as it clears a major procedural hurdle, allowing the substantive infringement claims to move forward.
Genevant Sciences GmbH v.Moderna, Inc.
In a procedural order concerning two infringement actions, the UPC Local Division dismissed most preliminary objections raised by Moderna against Genevant Sciences. Moderna had challenged the court's jurisdiction and competence for various defendants and patents. The Court ruled that the patent was validly opted-out and withdrawn, thereby confirming the UPC's authority to hear the case. While some issues regarding long-arm jurisdiction remain pending in the main proceedings, the path is cleared for the infringement claims to move forward.
10x Genomics, Inc. v.Curio Bioscience, Inc.
In this UPC infringement action, 10x Genomics v. Curio Bioscience, the Düsseldorf Local Division issued a detailed procedural order (UPC_CFI_140/2024). The order sets the stage for the oral hearing, establishing strict time limits for initial arguments and requiring both parties to submit preparatory materials, including English translations of their claims and preliminary cost estimates. This decision highlights the rigorous procedural management inherent in UPC litigation.
10x Genomics, Inc. v.Curio Bioscience Inc.
This procedural order in the UPC infringement action between 10x Genomics and Curio Bioscience addresses the availability of technical samples for inspection. The Court noted the Defendant's willingness to provide samples but pointed out that the timing was late, as no reasons were provided after written proceedings closed. The matter is now pending a decision by the Panel during the oral hearing.
Dealing with a patent challenge?
Whether it's a Section 3(d) rejection, a post-grant opposition, or a FRAND dispute, Arctic's patent litigation team has handled it. Get a strategy call.