REGISTER now: Visser ai webinar - BEYOND THE HYPE: AI IN PATENT PROSECUTION
​

Successful appeal deprives penalty payment of basis

​
Darren Smyth
​
January 10, 2025
Additional information
Chevron icon
Info
Tags
UPC
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

Invalidity of juicer patent upheld on appeal
03 November 2026
The Court of Appeal upheld the invalidity of Hurom’s juicer patent for lack of inventive step, while clarifying the admissibility requirements for patent amendments and the use of the unamended description when construing amended claims. It also confirmed the UPC’s jurisdiction over infringement in Poland despite Poland not being a UPCA Contracting Member State, but found that Hurom had failed to establish infringement under Polish law.
​
Evidence preservation doesn’t stretch to interrogation
03 November 2026
The Court of Appeal confirmed that evidence-preservation orders may be granted ex parte where there is a demonstrable risk that evidence could be destroyed or become unavailable, and that such orders may extend to relevant commercial and promotional documents. However, Art. 60 UPCA does not permit a bailiff or expert to question the defendant’s personnel on substantive technical matters, which must instead be handled under the Court’s control.
​
UPC Court of Appeal clarifies claim construction, the role of party experts, and provisional measures in direct-competition cases
03 November 2026
The CoA’s decision of 30 April 2025 in Insulet v EOFlow provides important guidance on claim construction, the role of party-appointed experts and the requirements for provisional injunctions.
​