REGISTER now: Visser ai webinar - Beyond the ai hype: ai in patent prosecution
​

Successful appeal deprives penalty payment of basis

No items found.
​
January 10, 2025
Additional information
Chevron icon
Table of contents
Chevron icon
Table of contents
  • Toc Heading
  • Toc Heading

Nanostring v 10x Genomics UPC_CoA_470/2023

Order of 10 December 2024 (ORD_598533/2023)

As we previously reported, the Munich Local Division of the UPC imposed a penalty payment against Nanostring for non-compliance with the provisional injunction it had granted. As well as successfully appealing the injunction decision, Nanostring appealed the penalty payment.

The Court of Appeal considered that the revocation of an order granting a provisional injunction will, as a general rule, have retroactive effect. The order is revoked because it has been established by a final judgment of the Court of Appeal that the order should not have been made. A revoked order must therefore be regarded as never having had any legal effect. Therefore, the Court of Appeal reasoned that the revocation of an order granting a provisional injunction prohibiting the continuation of infringements subject to a recurring penalty removes the legal basis for any subsequent decision ordering the payment of a penalty, even if that decision relates to alleged breaches of the provisional injunction prior to the revocation.

Accordingly, the Court of Appeal revoked the order relating to the penalty payment, on the ground that its basis was removed by the successful appeal of the provisional injunction. The Registry was instructed to refund to Nanostring the penalty payment.

Recent Case Reports

See all Case Reports

Bringing enforcement proceedings while an appeal is still pending risks liability for defendant’s costs
24 September 2026
The Court of Appeal held that setting aside a first-instance decision granting relief subject to recurring penalties generally has retroactive effect. Any penalty fees already paid will be refunded by the Court. The value of proceedings is determined by the interest of the party that brought the action. This is not changed as a result of an appeal. A claimant bringing enforcement proceedings while an appeal is still pending does so at its own risk and may be liable for the defendant’s costs related to the enforcement proceedings.‍
​
Replacement parts and the value of asserting a narrower claim combination
17 July 2026
The UPC's Düsseldorf Local Division found that Wessper's cartridges indirectly infringed Brita's patent, and that a narrower claim combination can turn a consumable into an essential element.
​
Preliminary objection on jurisdiction partially successful – UPC clarifies requirements of anchor-defendant jurisdiction for non-UPC territories
25 June 2026
The Hamburg Local Division let Nixu pursue US-based Infoblox in the UPC for Germany, France and Finland, but threw out the UK claim. To reach a non-UPC territory through an anchor defendant, a claimant must plead joint infringement there.
​