10x Genomics, Inc. v. Vizgen, Inc.

App_49415/2024

In this UPC case concerning patent infringement, the court issued a complex order regarding document disclosure stemming from parallel US litigation. The respondent sought to introduce evidence related to non-technical issues (such as competitive practices) into the European proceedings. The court granted the submission of specific documents but imposed stringent confidentiality requirements ('Outside Attorneys' Eyes Only'), balancing the need for evidence with protecting trade secrets.

Jurisdiction
European UPC
Court
Hamburg (DE) Local Division
Case Number
App_49415/2024
Judge(s)
in und Berichterstatterin Sabine Klepsch rechtlich qualifizierter Richter Dr; in Margot Kokke technisch qualifizierter Richter Dr; Die Anordnung wurde durch den vollst

What the Court Held — Ratio Decidendi

The court addressed a motion concerning the admissibility and justification of submitting non-technical evidence (abuse of rights). It ordered the parties to submit specific confidential documents related to parallel US litigation, provided these documents are treated as 'Outside Attorneys' Eyes Only.'

Practitioner Note

This case demonstrates the evidentiary and procedural standards applied in patent matters before Hamburg (DE) Local Division. Understanding the court's reasoning in 10x Genomics, Inc. vs Vizgen, Inc. is valuable context for structuring arguments or assessing risk in similar proceedings.

Related Cases

patentUPC_CoA_490/2024

AppellantvsAmycel LLC

This UPC Court of Appeal decision addressed an appeal challenging a provisional measures order, but ultimately focused on procedural compliance regarding court fees. The Appellant failed to pay the required remainder and penalty fees after being ordered to provide evidence of his small enterprise status. Consequently, the Court issued a decision by default against the Appellant, dismissing the appeal. This case highlights the strict adherence UPC courts maintain to procedural deadlines and financial obligations.

patentApp_8203/2025

Corning IncorporatedvsHisense Gorenje Germany GmbH, Hisense Europe Holding GmbH, TCL Deutschland GmbH & Co. KG, TCL Deutschland Verwaltungs GmbH, TCL Operations Polska, Sp. z o.o., TCL Belgium, SA, LG Electronics Deutschland GmbH, LG Electronics European Shared Service Center B.V, LG Electronics European Holding B.V.

In a key procedural ruling, the UPC Local Division Mannheim rejected preliminary objections raised by major electronics manufacturers (Hisense, TCL, LG) against Corning Incorporated. The court affirmed its jurisdiction under Art. 33(1)(a)UPCA, holding that local infringing acts in Germany are sufficient to establish competence, even without proving a direct commercial relationship between the claimant and all defendants. This decision clears the path for the main infringement proceedings to proceed.

patentApp_1153/2025

Hartmann Packaging A/SvsOmni-Pac Ekco GmbH Verpackungsmittel; Omni-Pac GmbH Verpackungsmittel

This decision from the Düsseldorf Local Division addresses procedural motions regarding the exchange of further written pleadings in a patent infringement and revocation case involving EP 2 755 901 B1. The court ruled against both the claimant (Hartmann Packaging A/S) and the respondents (Omni-Pac GmbH). The ruling underscores strict adherence to the UPC's procedural timetable, requiring parties to utilize their allotted submissions or formally request additional pleadings under R. 36 VerfO with strong justification.

patentORD_598539/2023

FUJIFILM CorporationvsKodak Holding GmbH, Kodak GmbH, Kodak Graphic Communications GmbH

In a significant decision concerning lithographic printing technology, the UPC Local Division in Düsseldorf revoked EP 3 594 009 B1 following a counterclaim for revocation. The court also dismissed the infringement action brought by Fujifilm against Kodak entities. This case highlights the critical interplay between jurisdiction, claim construction principles (favoring broad interpretation), and the strict requirements for amending claims under Art. 123(2) EPC. For patent practitioners, this decision underscores that even if an infringement suit is filed, a successful revocation counterclaim can lead to complete invalidation of the patent.

patentUPC-COA-0000898/2025

ONWARD Medical N.V.vsNiche Biomedical, Inc.

This UPC appellate decision addressed procedural matters in a dispute over neuromodulation systems. While the core infringement appeal was dismissed, the court issued an order regarding provisional costs. The ruling reinforces principles on how non-registered claims can be asserted and clarifies the standards for determining indirect patent use (Verwendungsbestimmung) based on objective evidence. This case is significant for practitioners dealing with procedural hurdles in complex medical device IP litigation.

Arctic Invent — IP Strategy

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.

Talk to our patent team →

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.

Strategy Consult

Facing a similar patent matter?

Arctic's litigation team uses precedent data like this to build winning arguments.

Get a Strategy Call