Biotech — European UPC Patent Cases
93 decisions indexed
Page 2 of 4 · 93 total
Labrador Diagnostics LLC v.bioMérieux SA, bioMérieux Deutschland GmbH, bioMérieux Italia S.p.A., bioMérieux Austria GmbH, bioMérieux Portugal, Lda., bioMérieux Benelux BV
In this procedural order, the Düsseldorf Local Division addressed the complex interplay between an infringement action and a counterclaim for revocation concerning EP 3 756 767 B1. Following the parties' agreement and considering efficiency, the court opted to refer the revocation counterclaim to the Milan Central Division while allowing the infringement proceedings to continue locally. The panel also determined that a stay of the infringement case was not warranted at this preliminary stage, setting the path for parallel litigation tracks.
Pfizer Inc. v.GlaxoSmithKline Biologicals SA
In this procedural order, the Unified Patent Court allowed Pfizer and GlaxoSmithKline Biologicals SA to withdraw a revocation action concerning EP4183412. The case involved complex cross-referencing between an infringement proceeding in Düsseldorf and the revocation action in Milan. Since both parties agreed on the withdrawal and subsequent closure of the proceedings, the court granted the request while also ordering the reimbursement of 60% of the court fees paid by the withdrawing parties.
Pfizer Inc. v.GlaxoSmithKline Biologicals SA
In a procedural order, the UPC Central Division allowed Pfizer (the claimants/counterclaimants) to withdraw its revocation action against GlaxoSmithKline Biologicals SA concerning EP4183412. This decision was reached following mutual agreement between both parties. The Court also ordered the reimbursement of 60% of court fees paid by the withdrawing parties. This case highlights how procedural agreements and party consent can lead to the swift closure of complex patent litigation.
Pfizer Inc. v.GlaxoSmithKline Biologicals SA
In a procedural order concerning EP4183412, the UPC Central Division allowed Pfizer (the claimants) and GlaxoSmithKline Biologicals SA (the defendant) to withdraw their respective revocation action and counterclaim. The parties reached an agreement that rendered the patent amendment applications moot. This case highlights how mutual consent can lead to the swift closure of complex litigation in the UPC, even when significant value is at stake.
Pfizer Inc. v.GlaxoSmithKline Biologicals SA
In a procedural order concerning the revocation of EP4183412, Pfizer and GlaxoSmithKline Biologicals SA mutually agreed to withdraw the action and counterclaim. The UPC Central Division granted this request, effectively closing the proceedings. This case highlights how mutual consent can lead to the swift dismissal of complex patent litigation, even when significant value is at stake.
Promosome LLC v.Pfizer Manufacturing Belgium NV, Pfizer SAS, Pfizer, Inc., Pfizer AB (and associated BioNTech entities)
Promosome LLC initiated an infringement action against Pfizer and its affiliates concerning various Comirnaty® COVID-19 vaccine variants protected by EP 2 401 365. The Defendants raised a preliminary objection arguing that the UPC lacked jurisdiction over alleged infringing acts related to certain pre-June 2023 sales, citing the principle of non-retroactivity in international law. The Court acknowledged its subject matter competence but deferred the conclusive decision on the jurisdictional challenge to the main proceedings, allowing the case to proceed.
Promosome LLC v.BioNTech SE, BioNTech Manufacturing GmbH, BioNTech Manufacturing Marburg GmbH, BioNTech Innovative Manufacturing Services GmbH, BioNTech Europe GmbH, Pfizer Manufacturing Belgium NV, Pfizer SAS, Pfizer AB, and Pfizer, Inc.
Promosome LLC initiated an infringement action against BioNTech and Pfizer regarding various Comirnaty® COVID-19 vaccine variants, citing EP 2 401 365. The Defendants raised a preliminary objection challenging the UPC's jurisdiction over alleged infringing acts that occurred before the UPCA came into force (specifically concerning the BA.1 variant). The Court ruled that while its competence is not retroactive, it defers the resolution of this jurisdictional challenge to the main proceedings, allowing the infringement action to proceed for now.
Genevant Sciences GmbH v.Moderna (various entities)
In a complex case involving fifteen Moderna entities across multiple jurisdictions, the UPC addressed procedural challenges related to service and scheduling deadlines. Claimants Genevant Sciences and Arbutus Biopharma sought extensions due to the global nature of their defendants. The Court rejected the specific extension requests but issued an order setting a unified deadline for all Defendants to file their Statements of Defense, demonstrating how the UPC manages multi-jurisdictional litigation efficiently.
10x Genomics, Inc. v.Bruker Spatial Biology, Inc.
In this procedural order, the UPC Local Division Munich addressed the continuation of a complex infringement case involving 10x Genomics and Bruker. After significant delays and disputes over the number of auxiliary requests filed by one claimant, the Court ruled that the proceedings should immediately continue. The decision highlighted the importance of balancing proportionality with the right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time, especially when procedural hurdles are resolved.
Promosome LLC v.BioNTech SE, BioNTech Manufacturing GmbH, BioNTech Manufacturing Marburg GmbH, BioNTech Innovative Manufacturing Services GmbH, BioNTech Europe GmbH, Pfizer Manufacturing Belgium NV, Pfizer SAS, Pfizer AB, Pfizer, Inc.
In this procedural UPC case concerning a patent infringement action involving EP 2 401 365, the Court addressed the request for security for costs. The Defendants successfully convinced the Court to order the Claimant to provide EUR 1.5 million in security, which was equally distributed between two groups of defendants (BioNTech and Pfizer). Crucially, while granting the security requirement, the Court dismissed the premature demand for a decision by default under Rule 355 RoP, maintaining procedural integrity.
Promosome LLC v.BioNTech SE, BioNTech Manufacturing GmbH, BioNTech Manufacturing Marburg GmbH, BioNTech Innovative Manufacturing Services GmbH, BioNTech Europe GmbH, Pfizer Manufacturing Belgium NV, Pfizer SAS, Pfizer AB, Pfizer, Inc.
In this procedural matter concerning a patent infringement action involving EP 2 401 365, the UPC Court addressed the request for security for costs. The Claimant, Promosome LLC, was ordered to deposit EUR 1.5 million to cover potential legal expenses of the Defendants (BioNTech and Pfizer group). Crucially, while the court granted the security requirement based on party agreement, it firmly rejected the premature demand by the Defendants for a default judgment under Rule 355 RoP, maintaining procedural integrity.
Promosome LLC v.BioNTech SE et al. (Pfizer Manufacturing Belgium NV, Pfizer SAS, Pfizer AB, Pfizer, Inc.)
In a procedural ruling, the UPC Local Division Munich rejected a request by major pharmaceutical companies (BioNTech and Pfizer group) to compel their opponent, Promosome LLC, to disclose detailed raw data from expert reports. The Defendants argued that they needed access to this data to properly defend against infringement claims related to mRNA technology for SARS-CoV-2. The Court ruled that the request lacked specificity regarding contested facts and reiterated that parties are generally free to determine their own supporting evidence.
Promosome LLC v.BioNTech SE et al.
In this UPC case, Promosome LLC sought to compel BioNTech and its affiliates to produce detailed raw data and experimental methods used in an expert report related to patent infringement. The Defendants argued that access to this data was necessary for them to properly defend against the infringement claims. However, the Court rejected the request, emphasizing that the defendants failed to specify concrete facts or evidence they wished to contest. This decision reinforces the high threshold required for a Rule 190 request, even when made by a defendant.
10x Genomics, Inc. v.Vizgen, Inc.
In a procedural ruling concerning appeals before the UPC's Appeals Board, 10x Genomics successfully petitioned for the refund of court fees. The decision confirmed that when an appeal is withdrawn before certain stages of proceedings are completed, the appellant is entitled to a partial reimbursement of the associated costs. This case highlights the practical application of cost recovery rules within the complex procedural framework of the UPC.
10x Genomics, Inc. v.Vizgen, Inc.
In a procedural ruling, the UPC's Board of Appeal addressed requests from 10x Genomics to recover court fees paid during three separate appeal proceedings. The court ruled in favor of 10x, granting partial refunds based on when they withdrew their appeals relative to the procedural stages (written vs. oral). This decision is significant for patent practitioners as it clarifies the application of fee refund rules under the UPC Agreement.
10x Genomics, Inc. v.Vizgen, Inc.
This UPC Court of Appeal decision concerns a procedural matter regarding the refund of court fees paid by 10x Genomics during three separate appeal proceedings against Vizgen. The court ruled in favor of 10x, granting partial refunds based on when each respective appeal was withdrawn. This case highlights the practical application of fee refund rules within the UPC framework for parties who withdraw their appeals.
Promosome LLC v.BioNTech SE, BioNTech Manufacturing GmbH, BioNTech Manufacturing Marburg GmbH, BioNTech Innovative Manufacturing Services GmbH, BioNTech Europe GmbH, Pfizer Manufacturing Belgium NV, Pfizer SAS, Pfizer AB, Pfizer, Inc.
In a procedural ruling, the UPC granted Promosome LLC's request to classify specific license agreement exhibits as confidential against the BioNTech/Pfizer consortium. This decision reinforces the protection of trade secrets and sensitive commercial information within the UPC framework. The Court meticulously defined who could access the documents, ensuring that confidentiality obligations extend beyond the conclusion of the proceedings.
Promosome LLC v.BioNTech SE, BioNTech Manufacturing GmbH, BioNTech Manufacturing Marburg GmbH, BioNTech Innovative Manufacturing Services GmbH, BioNTech Europe GmbH, Pfizer Manufacturing Belgium NV, Pfizer SAS, Pfizer AB, Pfizer, Inc.
In this procedural order, the UPC granted Promosome LLC's request to classify specific exhibits (VB 4a and VB 4b), which contain confidential license agreement terms between the parties, as confidential. The ruling establishes strict limitations on who can access this sensitive information, restricting it primarily to authorized legal representatives and their support staff. This decision reinforces the UPC's commitment to protecting trade secrets within ongoing infringement actions.
10x Genomics, Inc. v.Vizgen, Inc.
In a procedural decision concerning EP 4108782, the UPC Court of Appeal allowed 10x Genomics to withdraw its appeals against orders issued by the court of first instance. The case involved disputes over document submission requests made by Vizgen during an infringement action initiated by 10x. Both parties consented to the withdrawal, leading the appellate body to terminate the proceedings.
10x Genomics, Inc. v.Vizgen, Inc.
This UPC decision concerns an application by 10x Genomics to withdraw its appeals against certain interim orders issued by the Local Division of the Unified Patent Court. The appeal concerned a patent infringement case involving EP 4108782, where Vizgen had requested the disclosure of specific documents from 10x. Both parties agreed to the withdrawal of the appeals. The court accepted this request, formally concluding the appellate proceedings.
10x Genomics, Inc. v.Vizgen, Inc.
In a procedural ruling concerning EP 4108782, the Court of Appeal allowed 10x Genomics to withdraw all its appeals against certain interim orders issued by the Local Division in Hamburg. Vizgen agreed to this withdrawal. This decision highlights the flexibility within the UPC framework regarding appeal withdrawals, provided no final judgment has been rendered on the underlying infringement case.
10x Genomics, Inc. v.Curio Bioscience, Inc
In a procedural order, the UPC Court of Appeal permitted Curio Bioscience to withdraw its appeal against an earlier decision concerning security for legal costs. The court found that since 10x Genomics had not formally objected to the withdrawal request within the statutory timeframe, it could not be considered to have a legitimate interest in maintaining the proceedings. This ruling highlights the procedural flexibility available under UPC rules regarding appeals and withdrawals.
10x Genomics, Inc. v.Curio Bioscience Inc.
In this procedural order concerning enforcement security, the UPC Local Division in Düsseldorf ruled in favor of 10x Genomics, Inc. The Applicant had initially deposited EUR 2 million to secure a preliminary injunction but subsequently obtained and provided an equivalent bank guarantee. The Court found that the Applicant had a legitimate interest in exchanging the deposit for the bank guarantee due to logistical and economic reasons. Consequently, the Court ordered the repayment of the original security deposit.
GXD-Bio Corporation v.Myriad Genetics S.r.l., Myriad GmbH, Myriad Genetics S.A.S., Myriad Genetics B.V., Myriad Genetics, Inc., Myriad Service GmbH, Myriad Genetics GmbH, Eurobio Scientific
In this UPC case, GXD-Bio Corporation sued Myriad Genetics and others for alleged infringement of EP 3 346 403. The defendants raised a preliminary objection challenging the Court's competence to hear claims related to acts predating the claimant's registration as proprietor. The Judge-rapporteur rejected this objection, affirming the UPC's subject-matter jurisdiction over infringement actions. This ruling clarifies that standing issues are matters of merit and not grounds for excluding the case at the preliminary stage.
President and Fellows of Harvard College v.NanoString Technologies Inc.
This decision addresses the complex issue of managing a large number of auxiliary requests filed by Claimant 2 (Harvard College) in an application to amend a patent, while parallel opposition proceedings are ongoing at the EPO. The Court recognized that given the extensive validity attacks, limiting the amendments strictly is not feasible under the principle of fairness. Consequently, the proceedings were stayed pending the EPO's decision, and Harvard was instructed to consolidate its requests for submission shortly thereafter.
Alexion Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v.Samsung Bioepis NL B.V.
This UPC Court of Appeal decision addressed an application for provisional measures concerning a C5-binding antibody patent. The core issue revolved around claim interpretation, specifically whether a sequence ID number included extra amino acids as interpreted by the Technical Board of Appeal (TBA). The court ultimately found that this interpretation led to insufficient disclosure under Art. 83 EPC because the resulting claimed molecule was not functional as intended for drug use. Alexion's appeal was rejected, reinforcing strict standards regarding claim scope and enablement in biotech patents.
Alexion Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v.Amgen Technology (Ireland) Unlimited Company et al.
This UPC Court of Appeal decision addressed an application for provisional measures concerning a monoclonal antibody used to treat rare diseases like PNH. The core dispute revolved around the interpretation and validity of the patent claims, specifically regarding amino acid sequences. The court ruled that the claim was insufficiently disclosed because the full sequence did not possess the claimed therapeutic activity, leading to the rejection of Alexion's appeal.
Curio Bioscience, Inc. v.10x Genomics, Inc.
This UPC Court of Appeal decision addressed an application by Curio Bioscience to grant suspensive effect to a prior Court of First Instance order requiring them to provide security for legal costs. The court ruled against Curio, emphasizing that the burden lies squarely on the applicant to prove 'extreme urgency' under Rule 223 RoP. The ruling reinforces strict procedural requirements for obtaining temporary relief in UPC proceedings, particularly when challenging interim measures.
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.
10x Genomics, Inc. v.Curio Bioscience Inc.
In a request for security of legal costs, the UPC Local Division in Düsseldorf ordered Curio Bioscience Inc. to provide EUR 200,000 in security to 10x Genomics, Inc. The case centered on whether a claimant could successfully petition for cost security against a defendant under the UPCA framework. The Court ultimately ruled in favor of 10x Genomics, acknowledging the voluntary nature of litigation while balancing this with procedural fairness.
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.