Short Summary
Guardant Health appealed an order of the Paris Local Division rejecting its application for provisional measures against Sophia Genetics regarding European Patent EP 3 443 066, and sought suspensive effect for the associated interim award of costs of EUR 400,000. The Court of Appeal held the application for suspensive effect admissible but unfounded, finding that Guardant failed to demonstrate manifest errors or infringement of fundamental procedural rights, as the record showed both parties had requested interim reimbursement of costs of EUR 600,000. The Court rejected Sophia's request to set a payment deadline and dismissed it as inadmissible.
Detailed Summary
On 29 August 2025, Guardant Health, Inc. filed an Application for provisional measures before the Paris Local Division against Sophia Genetics entities (SA, SAS, SRL, GmbH) for alleged infringement of four European patents: EP'533, EP'073, EP'066, and EP'986. Guardant later withdrew its request regarding EP'533. The Paris Local Division rejected the application for provisional measures under the remaining three patents and ordered Guardant to pay an interim award of costs of EUR 400,000. Guardant appealed only with respect to EP'066 and sought suspensive effect regarding the interim costs order.
Guardant argued that the Court of First Instance (CFI) made a manifest error by awarding interim costs without making an order for costs and without Sophia having requested an interim award of costs. Guardant further contended that the CFI failed to establish the amount of costs incurred and that, if the interim award were not set aside, Guardant would have no procedural means to challenge the reasonableness and proportionality of the amount. Guardant alternatively requested that any interim award ceiling be set at EUR 225,000 (half of three-quarters of EUR 450,000) or at most EUR 300,000.
Sophia opposed the application, arguing that both parties had requested interim reimbursement of costs of EUR 600,000 during the first-instance proceedings, and that Sophia had filed a separate Application for a cost decision under Rules 150 and 151 RoP on 12 February 2026. Sophia contended that Guardant's application was inadmissible under R. 223.5 RoP and that the value of the interim costs award was not a matter for the Court of Appeal under an application for suspensive effect.
The Court of Appeal first addressed admissibility, holding that R. 223.5 RoP did not apply because the appeal was brought under R. 220.1(c) RoP, which is not listed in R. 223.5. The Court further held that the interim award of costs qualifies as an order referred to in Art. 62 UPCA, citing the Barco v. Yealink decision. On the merits, the Court applied Art. 74(1) UPCA, which provides that appeals do not have suspensive effect unless the Court of Appeal decides otherwise. The Court noted that suspensive effect may be granted where the impugned order is manifestly erroneous or where enforcement would render the appeal largely irrelevant.
The Court found that Guardant failed to demonstrate an infringement of fundamental procedural rights, as Guardant's assertion that the interim award was granted without a corresponding request contradicted the impugned order, which established that both parties requested reimbursement of costs amounting to EUR 600,000. Guardant did not adequately explain why this finding was incorrect. The Court also found that Guardant failed to demonstrate manifest errors, noting that the question of how to ensure the interim award does not exceed actual costs must be decided in the main appeal proceedings. While the Court acknowledged that an explicit order for costs was missing, it held that this did not influence the order granting the interim award. The Court further noted that Guardant did not expressly allege that the amount of the interim award was based on a manifest error, and that the CFI may have assumed both parties agreed on the costs to be reimbursed given their matching EUR 600,000 requests.
Regarding Sophia's request to set a deadline for payment of the interim award, the Court held there was no legal basis for such a request in proceedings for an order suspending the effect of the appeal, and dismissed it as inadmissible. The Court also declined to decide on costs in this order, as it was not a final order concluding an action.
The Court of Appeal ultimately rejected Guardant's Application for suspensive effect and dismissed Sophia's request for setting a payment deadline and costs as inadmissible.
Practitioner Note
This case demonstrates the evidentiary and procedural standards applied in patent matters before Luxembourg (LU). Understanding the court's reasoning in Guardant Health, Inc. vs Sophia Genetics SA, Sophia Genetics SAS, Sophia Genetics SRL, Sophia Genetics GmbH is valuable context for structuring arguments or assessing risk in similar proceedings.
Related Cases
CUP&CINO Kaffeesystem-Vertrieb GmbH & Co. KGvsALPINA Coffee Systems GmbH
This is a procedural order issued by the Local Chamber Düsseldorf concerning three European patents (EP 3 398 487, EP 3 281 569, and EP 3 610 762) in a dispute between CUP&CINO Kaffeesystem-Vertrieb GmbH & Co. KG (plaintiff) and ALPINA Coffee Systems GmbH (defendant). The court addressed the question of how to proceed under Article 33(3) of the UPC Agreement regarding the handling of the infringement action and the counterclaim for revocation. With the agreement of both parties, the chamber ordered that both the infringement action and the revocation counterclaim be heard jointly, citing procedural efficiency and the moderate complexity of the technical subject matter.
Netgear International Limited, Netgear Inc., Netgear Deutschland GmbHvsRespondent
This is a procedural order issued by the Local Division Munich in a declaration of non-infringement action brought by Netgear entities against Huawei Technologies concerning European Patents Nos. 3 678 321 and 3 611 989. The order addresses two procedural matters: the inclusion of a license agreement between Huawei and Qualcomm (previously filed as Annex K68 in related infringement proceedings) into the present case file, and the assignment of technically qualified judge Patrice Vidon from a related proceeding to this case. Both parties consented to these procedural economy measures, and the court ordered the continuation of existing confidentiality protections.
Wonderland Nurserygoods Co.,Ltd.vsCybex GmbH a. o.
The Düsseldorf Local Division of the Unified Patent Court upheld a judge-rapporteur's order denying the claimant's application for leave to change its claim to add an auxiliary request asserting infringement by equivalence for additional patent features. The defendants had requested a panel review under R. 333 RoP, arguing the reasoning was disadvantageous to them. The panel found the review admissible but rejected it on the merits, confirming that extending the equivalence argument to features 1.9 and 1.10 did not alter the nature or scope of the dispute.
(1) GC AESTHETICS PARENTCO LIMITED (2) NAGOR LIMITED (3) GC AESTHETICS MANAGEMENT LIMITED (4) GC AESTHETICS (DISTRIBUTION) LIMITED (5) GC AESTHETICS (France) SAS (6) EUROSILICONE SAS (7) GC AESTHETICS ITALY S.R.L. (8) GC AESTHETICS GmbH (9) GC AESTHEvsESTABLISHMENT LABS S.A.
This case concerns a Preliminary Objection filed by 13 defendants associated with GC Aesthetics challenging the Unified Patent Court's (UPC) jurisdiction over alleged infringements of EP 3 107 487 B1 in non-UPC contracting states (Ireland, Spain, Norway, Switzerland, and the United Kingdom). The defendants argued that the claimant, Establishment Labs S.A., relied solely on the domicile of Defendant 13 (Romed N.V.) in Belgium without evidencing any activities in non-UPC countries. The Local Division Brussels dismissed the Preliminary Objection, holding that the UPC has jurisdiction over all national designations of the European patent when at least one defendant is rightfully sued before the UPC, and that the substantive assessment of infringement in those territories belongs to the merits stage.
Progress Maschinen & Automation AGvsRespondent
This order concerns the determination of the value of the case for the purpose of applying the scale of ceilings for recoverable costs in proceedings between Progress Maschinen & Automation AG (Claimant) and AWM s.r.l. and Schnell s.p.a. (Defendants). The Claimant valued the infringement case at EUR 2,000,000, while the Defendants disputed the sales volume, machine prices, and royalty rate. The judge-rapporteur set the value of both the infringement action and the counterclaim for revocation at EUR 2,000,000 each, subject to possible reconsideration by the Panel at the conclusion of the oral hearing.
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.