Biotech — European UPC Patent Cases
93 decisions indexed
Page 3 of 4 · 93 total
Pfizer Inc v.GlaxoSmithKline Biologicals SA
In a procedural order, the UPC Central Division rejected GlaxoSmithKline's preliminary objection challenging its competence to hear the revocation action against Pfizer regarding EP4183412. Glaxo argued that a parallel infringement suit before the Düsseldorf Local Division conflicted with procedural economy principles. The Court ruled in favor of Pfizer, affirming the Milan Central Division's jurisdiction and allowing the revocation proceedings to continue. This decision clarifies the scope of competence under the UPC when multiple actions concerning the same patent are pending across different divisions.
GXD-Bio Corporation v.Myriad International GmbH, Myriad GmbH, Myriad Service GmbH, Myriad Genetics GmbH, Myriad Genetics S.A.S., Myriad Genetics B.V., Myriad Genetics S.r.l., Myriad Genetics Inc., Eurobio Scientific
In this procedural order concerning an infringement action, the UPC Court mandated that the Claimant, GXD-Bio Corporation, provide security for legal costs to the Defendants. The Defendants successfully argued that the Claimant's financial standing raised legitimate concerns about cost recovery. Although the initial request was for a default judgment upon failure to comply, the Court granted a seven-week extension until January 15, 2025, allowing the Claimant time to arrange the necessary deposit.
Plant-e Knowledge B.V. v.Arkyne Technologies S.L.
Plant-e successfully sued Arkyne Technologies (Bioo) in the UPC for infringement of its patent covering devices and methods that convert light energy into electricity using living plants. The court ruled that the patent was valid and found infringement based on equivalence, not just literal reading. This decision reinforces the application of established national case law tests when assessing non-literal infringement within the unified patent system.
Plant-e Knowledge B.V. v.Arkyne Technologies S.L.
In a significant ruling for green technology patents, the UPC found that Arkyne Technologies S.L. infringed Plant-e Knowledge B.V.'s patent EP2137782 by equivalence. The court applied a detailed four-part test to determine if the respondent's biofuel cell products fell within the scope of the claims, confirming both validity and infringement. This decision underscores the importance of robust claim construction and the application of the equivalence doctrine in complex technological fields like microbial fuel cells.
ASTELLAS INSTITUTE FOR REGENERATIVE MEDICINE v.Healios K.K, Riken, Osaka University
This UPC decision addressed an application for access to confidential documents within a revocation action (UPC 75/2023). The Applicant, Mathys & Squire LLP, sought unredacted versions of pleadings related to the Claimant's product valuation. The Court ruled in favor of the Applicant, finding that the Claimant failed to provide legitimate reasons to maintain confidentiality regarding the specific information. This decision reinforces the principle that public access is the default unless a party can clearly demonstrate a compelling need for secrecy.
10x Genomics, Inc. v.Vizgen, Inc.
This UPC decision addresses a motion for discovery/document production (Verfahrensanordnung) in an infringement case involving 10x Genomics and Vizgen regarding EP4108782. The court ordered the exchange of numerous documents, including deposition transcripts from both sides, which originated from parallel US litigation. A key aspect of the ruling is the imposition of strict confidentiality protocols ('Outside Attorneys’ Eyes Only') on all disclosed materials to protect sensitive business information.
10x Genomics, Inc. v.Vizgen, Inc.
In a procedural ruling concerning confidentiality, the UPC Court addressed the protection of sensitive business information shared between 10x Genomics and Vizgen. The court confirmed that specific documents contained highly confidential trade secrets related to their licensing agreement. It issued an order strictly limiting access to these materials only to the respective outside legal counsel, reinforcing the protective measures established in parallel US litigation.
10x Genomics, Inc. v.Vizgen, Inc.
In a procedural ruling concerning trade secrets, the UPC granted an order to protect confidential information contained within a licensing agreement (BP 34). The court recognized that the document held commercially valuable business and operational secrets. Consequently, access was strictly limited to the parties' legal counsel ('Outside Attorneys’ Eyes Only'), reinforcing existing protections from parallel US litigation.
NanoString Technologies Europe Limited v.President and Fellows of Harvard College
In a significant revocation action, the UPC Central Division completely revoked EP 2 794 928 B1, which covers methods for detecting analytes. The court determined that the patent lacked novelty over existing prior art (Göransson). This decision aligns with previous findings from both national courts and the Court of Appeal in related cases. The ruling underscores the UPC's commitment to rigorous examination of patent validity and strict adherence to procedural deadlines.
Astellas Institute for Regenerative Medicine v.Healios K.K, Riken, Osaka University
This UPC Order addressed a request for public access to documents in a revocation action, following the parties' settlement. The Court ruled that once proceedings conclude by agreement, the general interest in transparency outweighs concerns about procedural integrity. Access was granted to the written pleadings and evidence, but only after strict redactions were applied to protect confidential commercial information and personal data.
Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. v.Sibio Technology Limited; Umedwings Netherlands B.V.
This UPC Court of Appeal decision addressed an application for suspensive effect concerning provisional measures granted by the CFI. The core issue was whether the CFI's finding that Ireland was a Contracting Member State justified granting the injunction there. The court ruled this reasoning was manifestly erroneous, as Ireland had not ratified the UPCA. Consequently, it partially granted the request for suspensive effect only regarding the Irish territory.
10x Genomics, Inc. v.Vizgen, Inc.
This UPC preliminary procedure case involved a dispute over evidence production between 10x Genomics and Vizgen concerning the EP patent EP4108782. The defendant, Vizgen, sought various documents from both claimants to support its contractual and competition law defenses. The court partially granted the request, compelling the claimants to produce a specific license agreement related to FISSEQ technology. This decision highlights the interplay between UPC evidence rules and limitations imposed by parallel US litigation protective orders.
10x Genomics, Inc. v.Curio Bioscience Inc.
In a procedural order concerning confidentiality, the Düsseldorf Local Division addressed access rights in the ongoing infringement action between 10x Genomics and Curio Bioscience. The court clarified that while prior summary proceedings orders remain relevant, specific restrictions must be set for the main case to balance the parties' needs. Access to confidential documents was strictly limited to named counsel and their actively involved teams, emphasizing the personal liability of the primary representatives.
10x Genomics, Inc. v.NanoString Technologies Inc.
This UPC appellate case involved an application by 10x Genomics to reopen proceedings following a ruling that overturned an initial injunction against NanoString Technologies. 10x argued that the original judgment violated fundamental procedural rights, specifically regarding the court's reliance on its own technical expertise rather than party-submitted evidence. The Appellate Court firmly rejected this claim, stating that judicial assessment of facts and evidence is not subject to review in a reopening application, thereby upholding the previous decisions.
ASTELLAS INSTITUTE FOR REGENERATIVE MEDICINE v.Healios K.K, Riken, Osaka University
This UPC decision addresses procedural applications in two revocation actions concerning patents EP3056563 and EP3056564. Both the Claimant, Astellas Institute for Regenerative Medicine, and the Defendants confirmed that they had reached a settlement. The Court accepted their request to dispose of the cases under Rule 360 RoP, confirming that settlement allows for case disposal without mandatory judicial confirmation. The ruling reinforces the principle of party disposition in UPC proceedings, allowing parties flexibility in concluding actions outside formal judgment. Furthermore, the court granted the Claimant a reimbursement of court fees, underscoring the procedural encouragement for early settlements.
Regeneron Pharmaceuticals Inc. v.Amgen Inc.
In a significant UPC decision, the Central Division revoked European Patent 3 666 797 B1, which covers PCSK9 inhibitors used for cholesterol reduction. The case involved Regeneron Pharmaceuticals Inc. and Amgen Inc., both major players in the biotech drug market. While the patent was successfully challenged and revoked, the court also ruled on costs, awarding a substantial sum to the successful Claimant (Regeneron). This ruling underscores the high stakes of UPC revocation actions in the competitive pharmaceutical landscape.
Sanofi-Aventis Deutschland GmbH v.Amgen, Inc.
In a significant decision, the UPC Central Division revoked European Patent EP 3 666 797 B1, which covers PCSK9 inhibitors used in cholesterol-lowering treatments. The case involved Sanofi-Aventis and Amgen, two major players in the biotech drug market. The revocation was based on patentability grounds, specifically concerning inventive step and claim interpretation. This ruling underscores the rigorous standards applied by the UPC when assessing complex biotechnological inventions.
10x Genomics, Inc. v.Curio Bioscience Inc.
In this procedural case before the UPC Court of Appeal, 10x Genomics appealed an order from the CFI regarding provisional measures against Curio Bioscience. After requesting withdrawal and receiving consent from Curio, the Court granted the request. The ruling clarifies that even when an appeal is withdrawn by mutual agreement, the withdrawing party (10x) must bear the costs of the appeal proceedings, setting a clear precedent for cost allocation in UPC appellate practice.
10x Genomics, Inc. v.Curio Bioscience Inc.
This UPC Court of Appeal decision clarifies the scope and persistence of confidential information protection orders (R.262A RoP) across different procedural stages. The court held that confidentiality obligations established by the CFI remain fully effective in subsequent appeal proceedings, negating the need for redundant protective measures. This ruling provides clarity on how parties must manage sensitive evidence when appealing decisions.
Curio Bioscience Inc. v.10x Genomics, Inc.
This UPC Court of Appeal decision clarifies the procedural application of confidentiality rules (R. 262A RoP) during appeal proceedings. The court held that if information was already protected by a CFI order, parties do not need to file redundant requests for protection in the appellate phase. This streamlines litigation by preventing duplication of protective measures.
Arkyne Technologies S.L. v.Plant-e Knowledge B.V.
This UPC decision addresses an application for the protection of confidential information (a 'confidentiality club' request) within ongoing infringement proceedings. Arkyne Technologies S.L. successfully argued that its experimental data regarding Bioo Panels constituted a protected trade secret. The court granted this request, establishing strict access controls and imposing significant penalty payments for any breach of confidentiality.
10x Genomics, Inc. v.Curio Bioscience Inc.
In this UPC case concerning nucleic acid detection technology, 10x Genomics sought provisional measures against Curio Bioscience. The Düsseldorf Local Division granted an injunction, confirming the validity and scope of EP 2 697 391 B1. However, the court imposed strict conditions for enforcement, requiring 10x Genomics to post a substantial security deposit of EUR 2 million. This decision highlights the high threshold required for obtaining provisional relief in UPC infringement cases.
10x Genomics, Inc. v.Curio Bioscience Inc.
In this provisional measures case, the UPC Local Division in Düsseldorf examined a dispute over EP 2 697 391 B1, which covers methods for localized nucleic acid detection. Although the Applicant (10x Genomics) sought various remedies, including costs security and injunctions, the court largely rejected these requests. The final order is highly conditional: while provisional cost reimbursement was ordered, enforcement of any measures requires the Applicant to first deposit EUR 2 million with the Defendant.
10x Genomics, Inc. v.Curio Bioscience Inc.
In a procedural order concerning an application for provisional measures in the Düsseldorf Local Division, the UPC addressed the complex issue of language change mid-litigation. Although the Court of Appeal had set English as the official language after the oral hearing was conducted in German, the court made an exceptional ruling. It allowed the final decision to be issued in German, provided it included a certified English translation, thereby balancing procedural fairness with the need for judicial efficiency.
Curio Bioscience Inc. v.10x Genomics, Inc.
In a procedural ruling concerning EP 2 697 391, the UPC Court of Appeal granted Curio Bioscience's request to change the court language from German to English. The decision emphasized that fairness is paramount when considering such changes, particularly weighing the position of the defendant (10x Genomics). This case highlights the practical application of procedural flexibility within the UPC framework, allowing parties to adjust proceedings based on linguistic and operational needs.
Curio Bioscience Inc. v.10x Genomics, Inc.
This UPC appeal case addressed the scope and continuation of confidentiality protections for sensitive business information. Curio Bioscience sought to restrict access to specific documents during appellate proceedings, but the UPC Board of Appeal found that a prior order from the Court of First Instance already covered these materials. The ruling emphasizes the continuity of protective measures under the UPC framework, preventing parties from seeking redundant relief.
Astellas Institute for Regenerative Medicine v.Healios K.K, Riken, Osaka University
This interim order in the revocation action concerning EP3056563 sets crucial procedural groundwork. The Court admitted a key declaration (D18) while imposing strict reply conditions on the Defendants. Additionally, the parties agreed upon the value of the dispute at EUR 4 million for cost assessment purposes. This decision moves the case closer to the oral hearing scheduled for June 2024.
ASTELLAS INSTITUTE FOR REGENERATIVE MEDICINE v.Healios K.K, Osaka University
This interim order in a revocation action concerning EP3056564 involved ASTELLAS INSTITUTE FOR REGENERATIVE MEDICINE against Healios K.K and Osaka University. The Court confirmed the oral hearing date for June 26, 2024, while also making key procedural decisions. Notably, the court admitted new evidence (D21) and formally set the value of the dispute at EUR 4 million for cost calculation purposes. This order demonstrates the UPC's active management of complex biotech revocation cases.
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.; NanoString Technologies Germany GmbH; NanoString Technologies Netherlands B.V.
This UPC Court of Appeal decision concerns an appeal regarding provisional measures for infringement of EP 4 108 782, a patent covering methods for multiplex analyte detection. The court ultimately rejected the injunction request filed by 10x Genomics against NanoString Technologies. Beyond the outcome, the ruling provides important guidance on claim construction, stressing that interpretation must be holistic, integrating the description and drawings with the claims to ensure adequate protection while maintaining legal certainty.
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.