Executive Summary
In a procedural ruling concerning EP 4108782, the Court of Appeal allowed 10x Genomics to withdraw all its appeals against certain interim orders issued by the Local Division in Hamburg. Vizgen agreed to this withdrawal. This decision highlights the flexibility within the UPC framework regarding appeal withdrawals, provided no final judgment has been rendered on the underlying infringement case.
What the Court Held — Ratio Decidendi
The Court of Appeal confirmed that a party can withdraw its appeal as long as there has not been a final decision on the main case, citing Rule 265 of the Rules of Procedure. Since both parties agreed to the withdrawal and waived cost claims, no further costs determination was necessary.
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 Vizgen, Inc. is valuable context for structuring arguments or assessing risk in similar proceedings.
Related Cases
Suinno Mobile & AI Technologies Licensing OyvsMicrosoft Corporation
This UPC Court of Appeal decision addressed a request for rectification filed by Microsoft following a default judgment issued against Suinno. Microsoft sought to amend the decision to include a notice (R. 356.3 RoP) warning that any subsequent default would be final. The Court rejected this application, emphasizing that the subject matter of appeal proceedings is strictly limited to what was requested by the parties. This ruling reinforces the principle that procedural requests must be raised within the scope of the initial litigation or appeal.
Edwards Lifesciences CorporationvsMeril GmbH, Meril Life Sciences Pvt. Ltd., Meril Italy S.r.l.
Edwards Lifesciences sued Meril entities for infringing its prosthetic heart valve patent (EP 3 669 828 B2). The UPC Local Division Munich issued a comprehensive decision, granting provisional damages of EUR 663,000 and ordering the defendants to cease infringement. Beyond the merits, the court provided important procedural guidance on suing multiple related entities under UPCA rules and applying EPO's problem-solution approach in litigation.
Abbott Diabetes Care Inc.vsSibio Technology Limited; Umedwings Netherlands B.V.
This UPC Court of Appeal decision addressed an application for suspensive effect concerning provisional measures granted by the CFI. The core issue was whether the CFI's finding that Ireland was a Contracting Member State justified granting the injunction there. The court ruled this reasoning was manifestly erroneous, as Ireland had not ratified the UPCA. Consequently, it partially granted the request for suspensive effect only regarding the Irish territory.
Daedalus Prime LLCvsXiaomi Inc.
In this UPC case concerning the patent EP2792100, Daedalus Prime LLC sought to restrict access to confidential documents related to the patent transfer agreement. The Court of First Instance issued a preliminary order balancing confidentiality concerns with procedural fairness for the Defendants (Xiaomi and MediaTek). While granting restricted access to specific in-house legal counsel, the court rejected the Claimant's argument that all employees were irrelevant, but also limited access based on job function.
Promosome LLCvsBioNTech SE, BioNTech Manufacturing GmbH, BioNTech Manufacturing Marburg GmbH, BioNTech Innovative Manufacturing Services GmbH, BioNTech Europe GmbH, Pfizer Manufacturing Belgium NV, Pfizer SAS, Pfizer AB, Pfizer, Inc.
In this procedural order, the UPC granted Promosome LLC's request to classify specific exhibits (VB 4a and VB 4b), which contain confidential license agreement terms between the parties, as confidential. The ruling establishes strict limitations on who can access this sensitive information, restricting it primarily to authorized legal representatives and their support staff. This decision reinforces the UPC's commitment to protecting trade secrets within ongoing infringement actions.
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.