MUNICH LOCAL DIVISION Trends and Developments Contributed by: Julia Traumann and Ulrich Blumenröder, Grünecker Patent- und Rechtsanwälte PartG mbB
The 10x Genomics v NanoString Case – From the First Case Ever Heard Before the UPC to a Long-Running Case Few recent patent battles have featured as many twists and turns as 10x Genomics’ enforcement campaign against its spatial biology competitor NanoString Technologies. The latest develop - ment came on 20 March 2025, with the EPO’s opposition division announcing its decision to uphold 10x’s European Patent 4 108 782 B1 (EP’782) – the first unitary patent to be asserted before the UPC – with only minor amendments. This decision marks the latest swing in the back- and-forth over patent EP’782. The patent was the subject of the UPC’s first-ever PI hearing in September 2023 before the Local Division Munich, which culminated later that month in the court’s first inter partes PI. At the time, the Local Division Munich conclud - ed that NanoString’s CosMX Spatial Molecular Imager and CosMX reagents for RNA detection likely infringed the patent, and that the patent was likely valid. The court imposed an injunc - tion across 17 European countries. However, in February 2024, the UPC’s Court of Appeal over - turned the injunction, finding that there was not a “sufficient degree of certainty” regarding the validity of claim 1 (UPC_CoA_335/2023, order of 26 February 2024). This allowed NanoString to promptly relaunch CosMX – one of its flagship products. To the authors’ knowledge, NanoString is claiming damages for the period it was barred from the market due to the PI; with its decision on that matter, the Local Division Munich might once again write UPC history. The EPO’s decision will not enable 10x Genom - ics to seek the re-imposition of the Local Divi - sion Munich’s PI. It is, however, important for 10x Genomics as a negative decision by the EPO
dictional SEP licensing battle between the par - ties. The outcome of the new cases is expected to contribute significantly to the evolving case law on SEPs and the FRAND obligations of the Local Division Munich and the UPC, and even beyond. It is noteworthy that the standard of the four German judges for finding an implementer to be willing is very high. It is known that since Access Advance v Vestel (District Court Düssel - dorf, judgment of 21 December 2021), there has been no willing defendant in Germany. The Local Division Munich and the Anti-Anti- Suit Injunction (AASI) Offensive In Huawei v Netgear, the Local Division Munich issued an ex parte AASI, preventing Netgear from seeking an anti-suit injunction (ASI) in the United States (UPC_CFI_791/2024, order of 11 December 2024). Huawei contended that any US order obstructing the enforcement of its SEPs under the UPC’s jurisdiction would effec - tively infringe its patent rights. The Local Division Munich agreed, citing Article 32 Section 1 (c) of the UPCA in conjunction with the Brussels I bis Regulation (EU Regulation 1215/2012). It found that barring a patent holder from enforcing its rights is tantamount to infringement itself. Refer - ring to Articles 17 Section 2 and 47 of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights, the Local Divi - sion Munich emphasised that intellectual prop - erty and access to effective legal remedies enjoy strong constitutional protection. This rather expansive reading of the UPC’s juris - diction carries practical implications. While Arti - cle 32 of the UPCA might appear narrower than certain national statutes, the UPC has demon - strated its willingness to interpret its mandate broadly in order to protect a patentee’s right to litigate. It remains to be seen which approach other local and regional divisions, and of course, the court of appeal, will take in the future.
63
CHAMBERS.COM
Powered by FlippingBook