Short Summary
NanoString Technologies Europe Limited filed an action for revocation of European Patent 2 794 928 against Harvard before the Munich Section of the Central Division of the Court of First Instance. The Central Division revoked the patent entirely and ordered Harvard to bear NanoString's legal costs, prompting Harvard to appeal. After the appeal was filed, NanoString applied to withdraw the action, refrain from a cost decision, and release the security deposit of €300,000 it had previously provided.
Detailed Summary
On 27 July 2023, NanoString Technologies Europe Limited (the Respondent/Claimant) brought an action for revocation of European Patent 2 794 928 against the President and Fellows of Harvard College (the Appellant/Defendant) before the Munich Section of the Central Division of the Court of First Instance. By order of 30 October 2023, the Central Division ordered NanoString to provide security for legal costs and other expenses in the amount of €300,000 by way of deposit on the Court's bank account. NanoString complied with this order by transferring €300,000 to the Court's bank account on 28 November 2023.
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 before the Court of Appeal.
On 14 May 2025, NanoString filed an application to withdraw the action, to refrain from a cost decision, and to release the security deposit. NanoString's representative assured the Court that Harvard agreed to the withdrawal and to refraining from a cost order. By preliminary order of 15 May 2025, the Court of Appeal informed the parties that it assumed the assurance accurately reflected Harvard's position and gave Harvard the opportunity to rebut this assumption. Harvard did not file any response.
The Court of Appeal applied Rule 265.1 of the Rules of Procedure, which provides that a claimant may apply to withdraw the action as long as there is no final decision, unless the other party has a legitimate interest in the action being decided. The Court held that Harvard could be assumed not to have a legitimate interest in the appeal being decided, given its failure to respond to the preliminary order. The Court therefore permitted the withdrawal of the appeals and closed the proceedings. With the closure of the proceedings, the impugned decision of the Central Division became ineffective.
Regarding costs, the Court noted that although Rule 265.2(c) RoP provides that a decision on costs is to be taken in accordance with Part 1, Chapter 5, no decision on costs was required because NanoString expressly refrained from a cost decision and Harvard could be assumed to refrain from such a decision as well. Finally, the Court held that the security deposit of €300,000 had become devoid of purpose and ordered its release, as requested by NanoString.
The final decision, issued on 28 May 2025, permitted the withdrawal of the action and declared the proceedings closed, ordered that the decision be entered on the register, declared that there was no need for a cost decision, and ordered the release of the €300,000 security deposit.
Practitioner Note
This case demonstrates the evidentiary and procedural standards applied in patent matters before Munich (DE) Central Division - Section. Understanding the court's reasoning in President and Fellows of Harvard College vs NanoString Technologies Europe Limited is valuable context for structuring arguments or assessing risk in similar proceedings.
Related Cases
Hurom Co., Ltd.vsNUC Electronics Co., Ltd. and WARMCOOK
This order concerns the withdrawal of a penalty request in enforcement proceedings related to European Patent No. EP 2 028 981. After the Court of Appeal set aside the Local Division Mannheim's decision of 11 March 2025 and dismissed the underlying infringement action, the Claimant, Hurom Co., Ltd., withdrew its requests for the imposition of penalty payments on the Defendants by brief of 10 April 2026. The Defendants raised no objections, and the court permitted the withdrawal, declared the proceedings closed, and ordered the Claimant to bear the costs of the enforcement proceedings.
UPC Decision UPC-001562vsRespondent
UPC Court of Appeal UPC_CoA_5/2024 PR_APL_189/2024 ORDER of the President of the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court issued on 14 March 2024 pursuant to Rule 229.5 RoP HAEDNOTE Under Rule 220.2 RoP an appeal from an order without leave is inadmissible from the outset and, as
LAMA FRANCEvsRespondent
Division locale de Paris UPC_CFI_358/2023 Ordonnance du Tribunal de première instance de la Juridiction unifiée du brevet, rendue le 19/12/2024 REQUÉRANT LAMA FRANCE 241 Rue du Companet 69140 - Rillieux-la-Pape - FR Représenté par Henri BOURGEOIS DEFENDEUR HEWLETT-PACKARD DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, L.P 10
Industria Lombarda Materiale Elettrico I.L.M.E. S.p.A., ILME GmbH Elektrotechnische HandelsgesellschaftvsPHOENIX CONTACT GmbH & Co. KG
The Local Division Munich addressed an objection by the defendants challenging the court's jurisdiction over alleged infringing acts that occurred before the Unified Patent Court Agreement (UPCA) entered into force and during the period of an opt-out. The court held that the UPC's jurisdiction under Art. 32(1)(a) UPCA, Art. 2(g), and Art. 3(c) UPCA extends to infringement actions based on such pre-UPCA and opt-out period acts of use. The court further clarified that jurisdiction and applicable law are separate legal concepts that must be assessed independently of one another.
Tandem Diabetes Care Europe B.V., Tandem Diabetes Care, Inc.vsRespondent
This case concerns an appeal by Tandem Diabetes against a decision of the Central Division Paris dated 18 December 2024, which had dismissed their revocation action concerning EP 2 196 231 (a patent relating to a system for ambulatory drug infusion) and ordered Tandem Diabetes to bear the costs. Following the filing of the appeal, the parties informed the Court of Appeal that they had concluded the proceedings by way of settlement. The Court of Appeal confirmed the settlement pursuant to Rule 365 of the Rules of Procedure, terminated the appeal proceedings, and ordered that each party bear its own costs.
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.