Short Summary
Oxford Nanopore Technologies PLC sought provisional measures from the Unified Patent Court's Local Division Munich against four MGI/BGI respondents for alleged infringement of four European patents through the marketing and sale of 'Cyclone Devices' (sequencers and flow cells). The court separated the proceedings, dismissing the application against Respondents 2-4 for lack of jurisdiction and evidence, but granted extensive provisional measures against MGI Tech GmbH, including injunctive relief, delivery-up orders, information orders, and penalty payments in respect of EP 2 422 198 B1 and EP 2 715 343 B1.
Detailed Summary
Oxford Nanopore Technologies PLC ("Oxford") filed an application for provisional measures on 26 June 2026 with the Local Division Munich of the Unified Patent Court, alleging that four respondents—MGI Tech GmbH, MGI Tech Co., Limited, BGI Hangzhou CycloneSeq Technology Co., Ltd, and Shenzhen BGI Genomics Co., Ltd—were infringing or about to infringe four European patents (EP 2 422 198 B1, EP 2 715 343 B1, EP 2 964 779 B1, and EP 3 097 210 B2) by advertising and selling the 'Cyclone Devices' (including the CycloneSEQ-WT02, CycloneSEQ-WY01, G100-ER, and G400-ER sequencers, together with flow cells and reagents) in France, Denmark, Germany, Ireland, Liechtenstein, the Netherlands, Switzerland, and the United Kingdom. Oxford sought injunctive relief, sequestration, and information orders. Oxford noted that parallel infringement proceedings were ongoing in the Federal Court of Australia, where MGI Australia and the second respondent had admitted that the CycloneSEQ-WT02 fell within the scope of the asserted claims of the Australian equivalents of the patents in suit.
Following initial case management directions by the judge-rapporteur on 30 June 2026, Oxford withdrew its application regarding EP 2 964 779 B1 and EP 3 097 210 B2, narrowing the dispute to EP 198 and EP 343. MGI Tech GmbH filed an objection and an application to extend the time limit for filing its objection, which was rejected by the court. An oral hearing was held on 19 and 20 August 2026 before Panel 1a of the Local Division Munich, presided over by Dr Matthias Zigann.
At the hearing, Oxford argued that the respondents were infringing the asserted patents through the manufacture, distribution, sale, and use of the Cyclone Devices, and that the urgency requirement was met given the imminent launch of the CycloneSEQ-WY01 and the ongoing marketing activities. The respondents contested the application on multiple grounds, including lack of jurisdiction over Respondents 2-4 (Chinese entities), insufficient evidence of infringement, lack of urgency, and arguments regarding the validity and essentiality of the asserted patents. MGI argued that Oxford had delayed in seeking relief and that the Australian admissions did not establish infringement in Europe.
The court separated the proceedings, creating a new case for the claims against Respondents 2-4 (MGI Tech Co., Limited, BGI Hangzhou CycloneSeq Technology Co., Ltd, and Shenzhen BGI Genomics Co., Ltd) due to jurisdictional issues and insufficient evidence of their involvement in the alleged infringing activities within the territories covered by the UPCA. The application against these respondents was effectively dismissed or stayed pending further evidence.
Against MGI Tech GmbH (Respondent 1), the court found that Oxford had established a prima facie case of infringement of EP 198 and EP 343, that the urgency requirement was satisfied, and that the balance of interests favored granting provisional measures. The court ordered MGI to refrain from directly and indirectly infringing claim 7 and claim 1 of EP 198, and from directly infringing claim 1 of EP 343, across Denmark, France, Germany, Liechtenstein, the Netherlands, Switzerland, and the United Kingdom (and additionally Ireland for EP 343). MGI was further ordered to deliver up infringing devices to a bailiff and to provide detailed written statements regarding the quantities, origins, and orders for the Cyclone Devices in the relevant territories. The orders were made subject to recurring penalty payments of up to €70,000 per infringing product plus €20,000 per subsequent day for the injunctive relief, and up to €400,000 per day for non-compliance with the delivery-up and information orders. MGI was ordered to bear 50 percent of the court fees and to reimburse Oxford 60 percent of its proportionate legal costs. The provisional measures were made effective immediately and were subject to revocation if Oxford did not commence proceedings on the merits within 31 calendar days or 20 working days, whichever was longer, of receiving the complete information from MGI.
Practitioner Note
This case demonstrates the evidentiary and procedural standards applied in patent matters before local courts. Understanding the court's reasoning in Oxford Nanopore Technologies PLC vs MGI Tech GmbH, MGI Tech Co., Limited, BGI Hangzhou CycloneSeq Technology Co., Ltd, and Shenzhen BGI Genomics Co., Ltd 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.