Short Summary
This case concerns an appeal before the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court regarding the reimbursement of court fees following the withdrawal of an action. NanoString had brought a revocation action against Harvard's European Patent, which was revoked by the Court of First Instance. After Harvard appealed and NanoString subsequently withdrew the action, Harvard sought reimbursement of 60% of the appeal court fees. The Court of Appeal held that the action was withdrawn before the closure of the interim procedure rather than the written procedure, entitling Harvard to only 40% reimbursement.
Detailed Summary
On 27 July 2023, NanoString Technologies Europe Limited brought an action for revocation of European Patent 2 794 928 against the President and Fellows of Harvard College before the Munich Section of the Central Division of the Court of First Instance. By decision of 17 October 2024, the Central Division revoked the patent at issue entirely and ordered Harvard to bear the legal costs incurred by NanoString. Harvard lodged an appeal against this decision, and NanoString responded to the appeal.
On 14 May 2025, NanoString filed an application to withdraw the action, which the Court of Appeal permitted by order. On 23 May 2025, Harvard lodged an application for reimbursement of 60% of the court fees it paid for the appeal, relying on Rule 370.9(b)(i) of the Rules of Procedure, which provides for a 60% refund if the action is withdrawn before the closure of the written procedure.
The Court of Appeal examined the procedural timeline and determined that the written procedure before the Court of Appeal is limited to the submission of a statement of appeal, a statement of grounds of appeal, and a statement of response (unless a cross-appeal is lodged). Upon expiry of the period for lodging these statements, the interim procedure begins under Rule 239.1 RoP. The Court found that the written procedure in this case was closed when NanoString lodged its Statement of response on 16 April 2025 and the time limit of Rule 235 RoP expired. The judge-rapporteur's preliminary order of 5 May 2025, which gave Harvard the opportunity to reply to certain requests and both parties the opportunity to submit reasoned requests to file further written submissions, was issued as part of the interim procedure under the judge-rapporteur's case management powers (Rules 101, 331 et seq., and 239.1 RoP), and did not constitute an extension of the written procedure.
Accordingly, the Court of Appeal concluded that the action was withdrawn before the closure of the interim procedure, not before the closure of the written procedure. Under Rule 370.9(b)(ii) RoP, this entitled Harvard to a reimbursement of 40% of the court fees paid for the appeal, rather than the 60% requested. The Court ordered that 40% of the appeal court fees be reimbursed to Harvard.
Practitioner Note
This case demonstrates the evidentiary and procedural standards applied in patent matters before Luxembourg (LU). Understanding the court's reasoning in President and Fellows of Harvard College vs Respondent is valuable context for structuring arguments or assessing risk in similar proceedings.
Related Cases
Abbott Diabetes Care Inc.vsDexcom Inc., Dexcom International Limited
1 The Hague - Local Division UPC_CFI_424/2023 Procedural order of the Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court delivered on 9 February 2024 Date of receipt of Statement of claim : 16/11/2023 Dexcom Inc. (Defendant) - 6340 Sequence Drive - CA 92121-4356 - San Diego -
Corning IncorporatedvsRespondent
This is a revocation action before the Central Division (Section Munich) of the Unified Patent Court concerning European Patent No. 3 296 274. The Claimant (TCL Europe SAS) sought to introduce new added matter arguments and a Swedish Consulting Report into the proceedings, while the Defendant (Corning Incorporated) requested a four-week extension to file its Defence to Revocation. Following a video conference with the parties, the Court accepted their agreement to admit the new pleadings and extend the deadline by two weeks.
Dolby International ABvsCPYou B.V., Acer Italy s.r.l.
This procedural order concerns a panel review of a Judge-Rapporteur's order of 1 May 2026 regarding the admissibility of a counterclaim for rate-setting directed against an intervener, Vectis IP Ltd., who had intervened in support of the claimant Dolby International AB in a patent infringement action concerning EP3079153. The panel denied the review, holding that under Rule 315.4 RoP an intervener is treated as a party and may therefore be the target of a counterclaim, particularly given the principle of equal treatment. The panel further noted that the Court could rely on Rule 305 RoP to add Vectis as a proper party if necessary, and that the substantive objections raised by Dolby and Vectis (lack of standing, no dominant market position, no FRAND declaration) were matters of substance rather than admissibility.
SharkNinja Operating LLC, Needham, MA, United StatesvsGroupe SEB France, Écully, France, Groupe SEB WMF Consumer GmbH, Geislingen an der Steige, Germ
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court set aside the Paris Local Division's dismissal of SharkNinja's application for provisional measures against SEB regarding European patent EP 3 689 198, a cooking system patent. The Court of Appeal found the appeal well-founded, holding that the Paris Local Division erred in finding the relevant claims more likely than not invalid for lack of novelty over prior art (Tredy/CN 202312830 U). The Court ordered SEB to cease and desist from infringing activities in France and Germany, subject to penalty payments, and to provisionally reimburse SharkNinja's costs.
Gowling WLGvsMerz Therapeutics GmbH, Merz Pharmaceuticals LLC, Merz Pharma France-Viatris Santé
1 Paris Local Division UPC_CFI_283/2026 Procedural Order of the Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court delivered on 19/02/2026 concerning R. 262.1(b) Request for access to the case file - UPC_CFI_697/2025 APPLICANT Gowling WLG 38 avenue de l'Opera, 75002, Paris, FR Represented by Mari
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.