Short Summary
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court issued an order on March 11, 2025, granting partial reimbursement of court fees to 10x Genomics, Inc. and President and Fellows of Harvard College following the withdrawal of their three appeals against orders of the Hamburg Local Division concerning EP 4108782. The court applied Rule 370.9(b) of the Rules of Procedure, awarding 60% reimbursement for one appeal withdrawn before completion of written proceedings and 20% for two appeals withdrawn before completion of oral proceedings.
Detailed Summary
This order concerns three appeal proceedings before the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court, all arising from the main infringement proceedings ACT_460565/2023 (UPC_CFI_22/2023) before the Hamburg Local Division concerning European Patent EP 4108782. The appellants, 10x Genomics, Inc. and President and Fellows of Harvard College (collectively referred to as '10x'), had appealed three separate orders of the Court of First Instance dated October 22, 2024, November 1, 2024, and December 20, 2024. The respondent in all three appeals was Vizgen, Inc.
On March 5, 2025, the Court of Appeal allowed the withdrawal of all three appeals. By submissions dated March 6, 2025, 10x applied for reimbursement of the court fees it had paid. For the appeal in proceedings APL_26/2025 (UPC_CoA_1/2025), 10x sought 60% reimbursement on the basis that the appeal had been withdrawn before completion of the written procedure. For the other two appeals (APL_59634/2024 UPC_CoA_654/2024 and APL_61301/2024 UPC_CoA_700/2024), 10x sought 20% reimbursement on the basis that those appeals had been withdrawn before completion of the oral procedure.
The panel, composed of Klaus Grabinski (President of the Court of Appeal), Peter Blok (Rapporteur), and Emmanuel Gougé, found that the applications satisfied the requirements of Rule 370.9(b) of the Rules of Procedure and granted them in full. The court ordered: (I) reimbursement of 60% of the court fees paid by 10x for appeal APL_26/2025 UPC_CoA_1/2025; (II) reimbursement of 20% of the court fees paid by 10x for appeals APL_59634/2024 UPC_CoA_654/2024 and APL_61301/2024 UPC_CoA_700/2024; and (III) instructed the Registrar to effect the reimbursements as soon as possible. The order was issued in German on March 11, 2025.
Practitioner Note
This case demonstrates the evidentiary and procedural standards applied in patent matters before Luxembourg (LU). Understanding the court's reasoning in 10x Genomics, Inc. and President and Fellows of Harvard College vs Vizgen, Inc. is valuable context for structuring arguments or assessing risk in similar proceedings.
Related Cases
Avago Technologies International Sales Pte. LimitedvsTesla Germany GmbH and Tesla Manufacturing Brandenburg SE
Avago Technologies sued Tesla Germany GmbH and Tesla Manufacturing Brandenburg SE for infringement of European Patent EP 1 612 910 B1, which relates to a power control system for electronic circuits, alleging that Tesla's Model Y vehicles using AMD Ryzen processors infringed the patent. Tesla filed a counterclaim for revocation. The Local Chamber Hamburg of the Unified Patent Court partially revoked the patent in its main request but maintained it in a modified auxiliary request form, finding partial infringement and allocating costs 85% to Avago and 15% to Tesla.
Acer Computer GmbHvsHP Printing and Computing Solutions S.L.U. and Nokia Technologies Oy
Acer Computer GmbH applied under Rule 262.1(b) RoP for access to written pleadings and evidence in terminated application-to-amend proceedings concerning EP 2 661 892 B1. The court granted access, finding that Acer had a specific interest due to a related infringement action and that the general principle of public access applies even when proceedings have ended without a decision. The court rejected Nokia's argument that Acer should be restricted from distributing the documents, holding that confidentiality conditions apply only to pending proceedings.
Solvay Specialty Polymers Italy S.p.A.vsZhejiang Fluorine Chemical New Material Co., Ltd. and Hubei Fluorine New Materials Co., Ltd.
This case concerns a review of a confidentiality order before the Local Division Munich regarding EP 2 147 029. The defendants sought to exclude two individuals from the confidentiality club on the grounds that they were not employees of the claimant but of related entities within the Syensqo group. The panel confirmed the confidentiality order, holding that Rule 262A.6 RoP does not require membership to be limited to employees of the party and that employees of the party's economic unit may be admitted to the confidentiality club.
Honeywell Control Systems Ltd.vsSovex Systems B.V. et al.
Honeywell Control Systems Ltd. initiated an infringement action before the Mannheim Local Division concerning EP 2 563 695 B1 against seven defendants. The defendants filed a preliminary objection seeking dismissal for lack of jurisdiction/competence or transfer to The Hague Local Division. The judge-rapporteur rejected the preliminary objections, and the defendants applied for panel review under R. 333 RoP, which was also rejected, though leave to appeal was granted.
BTL Medizintechnik GmbHvsLexter Microelectronic Engineering Systems S.L.
Infringement proceedings before the Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court (The Hague Local Division) concerning European Patent EP4146335. The claimant, BTL Medizintechnik GmbH, requested withdrawal of the action pursuant to Rule 265.1 of the Rules of Procedure after reaching a settlement with the defendant. The defendant consented to the withdrawal, and the court allowed the withdrawal, declared the proceedings closed, and found no need for a cost 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.