Executive Summary
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.
What the Court Held — Ratio Decidendi
The appellate court confirmed that the assessment of arguments and evidence by the court is not subject to review in an application for reopening of proceedings. Furthermore, the decision on costs was deemed legally sound as infringement actions are independent claims under the UPC Agreement.
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. vs NanoString Technologies Inc. is valuable context for structuring arguments or assessing risk in similar proceedings.
Related Cases
Barco N.V.vsYealink (Xiamen) Network Technology Co. Ltd. and Yealink (Europe) Network Technology B.V.
This UPC Court of Appeal decision addressed an application for provisional measures, focusing heavily on procedural issues such as competence and the awarding of interim costs. The court clarified that internal division competence within the UPC is distinct from EU regulations like Brussels I Recast. Crucially, it established a practical guideline for interim cost awards in these urgent proceedings, setting a precedent for how parties can recover expenses pending final decisions.
Meril Italy srlvsEdwards Lifesciences Corporation
In this procedural order, the UPC Central Division addressed a request by Meril Italy srl to extend the written phase of a revocation action against Edwards Lifesciences Corporation. The claimant sought permission for further pleadings due to new arguments raised by the defendant in its rejoinder. However, the Court ruled that the existing rules governing the written procedure were sufficient and that the request lacked justification under principles of proportionality. This decision reinforces the strict adherence to procedural timelines within UPC revocation actions.
Industriebeteiligungs- und Beratungs GmbHvsWashtower IP B.V.
In this UPC Court of Appeal decision, the parties agreed to settle the dispute regarding provisional measures. The court permitted the withdrawal of the appeal, contingent on Washtower covering all legal costs and compensating Bega for any damages resulting from the initial injunctions. Crucially, the court determined the value in dispute at €530,000, applying a specific calculation method derived from the Guidelines to assess recoverable costs.
Dyson Technology LimitedvsDreame International (Hongkong) Limited, Teqphone GmbH, Dreame Technology AB
Dyson successfully appealed a provisional measures decision against Dreame's hair styling products before the UPC Court of Appeal. The court upheld the injunction and extended its scope to cover newer versions of Dreame's curling attachments, confirming that infringement is sufficient grounds for preventing future unauthorized use. This ruling provides clarity on how courts interpret claim features in relation to physical configurations and reinforces the broad application of provisional measures.
Rematec GmbH & Co KGvsEurope Forestry B.V.
This appeal court ruling addresses a procedural dispute regarding the jurisdiction for determining litigation costs following an initial judgment and subsequent appeals. Rematec sought to have its costs application referred back to the Local Division (GEI) based on prior rulings, but the Appeal Court denied this request. The court clarified that cost determination always originates at the GEI under the Rules of Procedure, regardless of whether the application follows a decision from the Appeal Court. This reinforces strict procedural adherence in UPC litigation.
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.