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

No language change at Central Division
08 October 2026
Proceedings before the UPC Central Division must be conducted in the language in which the patent was granted. There is no legal basis to change that language. In a revocation action concerning a German-language patent, the Paris Central Division rejected a request to switch the language of proceedings to English, and also rejected a subsidiary request to allow written submissions in English and hold the hearing in English, holding that Article 49(6) UPCA permits no derogation and reflects a deliberate legislative choice.
​
Criteria for obtaining an order to produce evidence under Rule 190
07 October 2026
This appeal judgment clarifies that Rule 190 orders to produce evidence require three cumulative conditions: specificity, necessity and proportionality, and cannot be used for fishing expeditions. The Court of Appeal confirmed that first instance judges enjoy a broad margin of discretion when assessing such requests, and upheld the order requiring production of two fabric samples for ballistic testing. Both the appeal and the cross-appeal were dismissed.
​
Court of Appeal focuses on the technical effect to determine added matter
30 September 2026
The Court of Appeal provided guidance on their approach to assessing added subject matter, highlighting that the technical effect underlying the invention and how the claimed and unclaimed features contribute thereto is central to the analysis.
​