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
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.