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
Rematec GmbH & Co KGvsEurope Forestry B.V.
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court refused leave to appeal against an order of the Local Division Mannheim that had rejected Rematec's two cost determination applications as time-barred and dismissed its applications for reinstatement. The Court held that an application for leave to appeal under Rule 157 in conjunction with Rule 221 of the Rules of Procedure is inadmissible insofar as it is directed against the rejection of a reinstatement application, since Rule 320.7 expressly precludes appeals against orders on reinstatement. The Court also rejected Europe Forestry's request to impose costs on Rematec, noting that cost reimbursement is generally not available in cost determination proceedings.
Rematec GmbH & Co KGvsEurope Forestry B.V.
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court refused leave to appeal against an order of the Local Division Mannheim that had rejected Rematec's two cost determination applications as time-barred and denied reinstatement into the missed deadlines. The Court of Appeal held that an application for leave to appeal under R. 157 and R. 221 RoP is inadmissible insofar as it challenges the rejection of a reinstatement application, because R. 320.7 RoP expressly excludes appeals against orders on reinstatement. No arguable grounds for leave to appeal were identified regarding the rejection of retroactive deadline extension requests.
Promosome LLC and The Scripps Research InstitutevsBioNTech SE, BioNTech Manufacturing GmbH, BioNTech Manufacturing Marburg GmbH, BioNTech Innovative Manufacturing Services GmbH, BioNTech Europe GmbH, Pfizer Manufacturing Belgium NV, Pfizer SAS, Pfizer AB, and Pfizer, Inc.
This order of the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court concerns three appeals (UPC-CoA-146/2026, UPC-CoA-147/2026, and UPC-CoA-148/2026) relating to EP 2 401 365. The appellants, Promosome LLC and The Scripps Research Institute, sought a one-month extension of the deadline for lodging their Statements of grounds of appeal, citing heavy professional workload and school holiday periods. Both groups of respondents (BioNTech and Pfizer entities) opposed the extension. The Court of Appeal rejected the applications, holding that the circumstances relied upon were foreseeable and did not justify an extension of the procedural time period.
Kodak Holding GmbH, Kodak GmbH, Kodak Graphic Communications GmbHvsFujifilm Corporation
This is a procedural order from the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court concerning European Patent EP 3 511 174. The Respondents (Kodak entities) requested a one-week extension of the deadline to file written comments on the Applicant's (Fujifilm's) request for rehearing. The Court granted the extension until 23 October 2026, finding the request admissible and well-founded because the Applicant had consented, the extension was brief, and the Respondents' representatives had been occupied preparing for a related oral hearing before the Düsseldorf Regional Court that was postponed shortly before the application was filed.
Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd.vsSercomm Italia SRL
This is a procedural order from the Local Chamber Munich of the Unified Patent Court concerning alternative service of process on Sercomm Italia SRL in a patent infringement action involving European Patent EP 3 611 989 B1. After multiple failed attempts to serve the Italian defendant at its registered business address, the rapporteur had previously ordered under Rule 275.2 RoP that the prior service measures constituted valid service. The present order addresses the fact that notification of that earlier order was unsuccessful and directs additional means of notification to ensure the defendant is informed.
Network System Technologies LLCvsQualcomm Incorporated, Qualcomm Technologies, Inc., Qualcomm Germany GmbH
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court rejected Network System Technologies LLC's (NST) applications for re-establishment of rights under R. 320 RoP. NST had sought to revive its late-filed appeals against the rejection of its R. 190 Applications (production of evidence) in three infringement proceedings against Qualcomm before the Munich Local Division. The Court held that NST failed to demonstrate that all due care had been taken, as the circumstances cited did not constitute exceptional circumstances or excusable error under the precedent set in AIM v Supponor.
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.