Short Summary
This is a procedural order from the Local Division Munich of the Unified Patent Court concerning the continuation of written proceedings in an infringement action regarding EP 4 108 782. The claimants had initially filed 55 auxiliary requests, which were later reduced to 4, and the court ordered the immediate continuation of the written procedure to preserve the agreed oral hearing date of 17/18 September 2025. The court set deadlines for the parties' further written submissions and requested confirmation regarding an interim conference.
Detailed Summary
This procedural order was issued by the Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court, Local Division Munich, on 11 April 2025, in case UPC_CFI_298/2023. The claimants are 10x Genomics, Inc. and President and Fellows of Harvard College, represented by Tobias Wuttke. The defendants are Bruker Spatial Biology, Inc., LUXENDO GmbH, BRUKER NEDERLAND B.V., and Bruker Corporation, represented by Oliver Jan Jüngst. The patent at issue is EP 4 108 782, and the language of proceedings is English.
The infringement action was filed on 31 August 2023. The proceedings had been stayed for many months, initially due to insolvency of the former defendants and later in connection with the oral hearing before the Opposition Division of the EPO. On 19 August 2024, claimant 2 (President and Fellows of Harvard College) filed 55 auxiliary requests within an application to amend the patent. The judge-rapporteur ordered a reduction to a one-digit number under Rule 30.1(c) RoP, but the Panel modified this order under Rule 333 RoP, allowing claimant 2 to submit auxiliary requests within 20 days after the EPO Opposition Division's decision without a numerical restriction. The defendants appealed this order, and the appeal remained pending.
In November 2024, the parties agreed on 17 September 2025 as the date for the oral hearing. On 20 March 2025, the Opposition Division maintained the patent in a limited version. On 9 April 2025, the claimants submitted a revised application to amend the patent with only 4 auxiliary requests (App_17184/2025; App_17187/2025; App_17189/2025) and an application for leave to change claim (App_17191/2025).
The court acknowledged that the Court of Appeal was dealing with an appeal concerning the admissibility of the former application to amend the patent and the quantity of auxiliary requests, and that the Court of Appeal had suggested awaiting its decision before submitting the revised application. However, the panel noted that this suggestion was made before it was known that the number of auxiliary requests would be reduced to just four.
The panel reasoned that 4 auxiliary requests is indisputably a reasonable number under Rule 30.1(c) RoP, creating a new situation. Considering that only 4 auxiliary requests remained, the proceedings had already lasted almost two years due to suspensions, an oral hearing date had already been agreed (which would become obsolete if proceedings were not continued), the Local Division was fully booked such that the oral hearing could not otherwise be held this year, and the parties' right to be heard within a reasonable period, the panel exercised its discretion to order the immediate continuation of the proceedings. The court emphasized that the longer a proceeding has lasted, the greater weight is given to the right to be heard within a reasonable period when deciding whether to continue.
The operative order: (1) immediate continuation of the written procedure was ordered; (2) the deadline for defendants to reply to claimants' submissions of 9 April 2025 was set for 11 June 2025; (3) the deadline for claimants to reply to defendants' submission was set for 11 July 2025; (4) the deadline for defendants' further reply was set for 11 August 2025; (5) the oral hearing date of 17/18 September 2025 remained unchanged; and (6) the parties were requested to indicate by 9 May 2025 whether they would be available for an interim video conference on 14 August 2025 (with 18 August 2025 as an alternative), or to state if no interim conference was required.
Practitioner Note
This case demonstrates the evidentiary and procedural standards applied in patent matters before Munich (DE) Local Division. Understanding the court's reasoning in 10x Genomics, Inc. and President and Fellows of Harvard College vs Bruker Spatial Biology, Inc. and others is valuable context for structuring arguments or assessing risk in similar proceedings.
Related Cases
Knaus Tabbert AGvsYellow Sphere Innovations GmbH and Erwin Härtwich
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court dismissed Knaus Tabbert's objection (Gegenvorstellung) against the rejection of its request for suspensive effect of its appeal. The court held that an objection under Rule 9.1 of the Rules of Procedure, which merely contests the reasoning of the rejecting order, is inadmissible, as Rule 9.1 governs procedural management measures and does not permit the alteration of final procedural orders.
Shenzhen Transsion Holdings Co. Ltd.vsTelefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson (Publ), Ericsson Holding International B.V., Ericsson Telecommunicatie B.V., Ericsson Telecomunicações, Lda.
Shenzhen Transsion Holdings Co. Ltd. filed a patent infringement action against multiple Ericsson entities before the Lisbon Local Division of the Unified Patent Court concerning European Patent No. EP4123910. Before the filing of the Statement of Defence, the Claimant withdrew the action, and the Defendants agreed to the withdrawal. The Court granted the withdrawal, ordered each party to bear its own costs, allowed a 50% reimbursement of court fees, and released the EUR 100,000 security for costs.
Rematec GmbH & Co KGvsEurope Forestry B.V.
This order concerns an application by Rematec GmbH & Co KG, the appellant in patent infringement proceedings concerning EP 2 548 648, seeking referral of its cost decision application from the Court of Appeal to the Court of First Instance (Mannheim Local Division). The Court of Appeal held that it lacked jurisdiction over cost decision applications, which must be filed before the Court of First Instance pursuant to R. 150 et seq. RoP, and dismissed Rematec's application for referral.
KraussMaffei Extrusion GmbHvsTROESTER GmbH & Co. KG
Unified Patent Court decision.
Edwards Lifesciences CorporationvsMeril GmbH and Meril Life Sciences Pvt Ltd.
Unified Patent Court decision.
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.
Disclaimer: This page contains an automated summary based on publicly available judicial records. The content is generated for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Always verify details against the original source judgment before relying on this information for any legal purpose. If you believe any information is inaccurate, please contact us.