Opens in a new tab

Guardant Health v Sophia Genetics (CoA, 18 February 2026)

Date18 February 2026
CourtCoA
DivisionLuxembourg (LU)
Type of actionApplication Rop 223
Case number(s)UPC_CoA_19/2026
Registry referenceUPC-COA-0000019/2026
PartiesGuardant Health, Inc. v. Sophia Genetics SA, Sophia Genetics SAS, Sophia Genetics SRL, Sophia Genetics GmbH

Official decision (PDF) · UPC registry entry

Case timeline

Dhenne Avocats represents claimants and defendants in European patent disputes before the Unified Patent Court, including the Paris divisions.

Contact the firm

Dhenne Avocats · 10 October 2026

Our analysis

Summary

In an order of 18 February 2026 (UPC_CoA_19/2026), the Court of Appeal refused suspensive effect to Guardant Health’s appeal against the EUR 400,000 interim award of costs made against it by the Paris Local Division on 23 January 2026, after its application for provisional measures against Sophia Genetics, based among others on EP 3 443 066, had been rejected. The award therefore remains enforceable despite the appeal.

Question

Should an appeal against an interim award of costs made in provisional measures proceedings have suspensive effect under Art. 74(1) UPCA and Rule 223?

Decision

Suspensive effect is exceptional: it requires a manifestly erroneous order, enforcement that would render the appeal largely pointless, or infringement of a fundamental procedural right where a different outcome cannot be ruled out (paragraphs 12 to 14). Guardant showed no infringement, both parties having requested an interim award of EUR 600,000, and the absence of an express costs order makes no difference (paragraphs 15 and 17). No manifest error was shown: reasonableness and the final amount are for the costs proceedings, the general rule being an interim award of 50% of the applicable ceiling (paragraphs 16 and 18). Sophia’s request for a payment deadline was inadmissible, having no legal basis in these proceedings (paragraph 19).

Key points for practice

Provisions applied

Agreement on a Unified Patent Court
Art. 62 and Art. 74(1)
Rules of Procedure
Rules 211.1(d), 220.1(c), 223.2 and 223.5
Case law cited
Meril v Edwards, Court of Appeal, 18 January 2024, ICPillar, Court of Appeal, 19 June 2024, Sibio v Abbott, Court of Appeal, 19 August 2024, Ocado v Third Party, Court of Appeal, 6 November 2023, Progress Maschinen & Automation, Court of Appeal, 2 May 2024, Belkin v Philips, Court of Appeal, 29 October 2024, Barco v Yealink, Court of Appeal, 28 November 2025, Meril v Edwards, Court of Appeal, 25 November 2025

Related decisions

Prepared by Dhenne Avocats from the official decision, consulted on 10 October 2026. The database is updated every week, on Friday. Only the official text is authoritative.


Decisions in the same proceedings

Going further

Lexicon: UPC Court of Appeal.

Dhenne Avocats blog: UPC Appeals: What the Numbers Show.

Source and translations

Official source
Unified Patent Court registry link recorded in the record
Original language
not recorded
Translation available
no translation recorded the firm’s French record is a summary, not a translation
Date checked
not recorded
Only the official text is authoritative. A machine translation is never presented as official, republishing a third-party document requires a verified basis in rights, and a link to the source is preferred.

Follow this case

Proceedings, related decisions, appeals, parties and patents as recorded in the registry and in the Dhenne Avocats corpus. Each link states its source.

Proceedings

  • UPC_CoA_19/2026 official number

Follow this case

Parties

Exact name as it appears in the record, group affiliation only where sourced and dated.

Decisions in the same proceedings and documented appeals

  1. 18 February 2026 Guardant Health v Sophia Genetics (CoA, 18 February 2026) Application Rop 223 · UPC_CoA_19/2026
  2. 2 July 2026 Sophia Genetics v Guardant Health (CoA, 2 July 2026) Appeal RoP220.1 · UPC_CoA_19/2026
  3. 2 July 2026 Guardant Health v Sophia Genetics (CoA, 2 July 2026) Appeal RoP220.1 · UPC_CoA_19/2026 · appeal, first-instance number cited in the decision

    L’appel de Guardant est rejeté faute d’urgence, bien que l’extension de l’objet retenue en première instance soit écartée. L’appel incident de Sophia est irrecevable et la provision sur frais est ramenée à 300 000 €.

What the record states

Nature of the act
Application Rop 223
Outcome (Dhenne Avocats summary)
La cour d'appel refuse l'effet suspensif à l'appel contre la provision sur frais de 400 000 euros, faute d'erreur manifeste ou de violation d'un droit procédural, et déclare irrecevable la demande de délai de paiement.
Appeal
Decision of the Court of Appeal.
Instance
Court of Appeal decision.

Patents mentioned

Related decisions cited in the analyses

Scope: Dhenne Avocats corpus. Registry-based links are marked “official number”; links derived from the analyses are marked as such. An erroneous link can be withdrawn without deleting any record.

Patents and standards

PublicationRole in the disputeFamilyStandard and declarationPoolSources
EP 3 443 066Mentioned in the analysis (role not qualified)
Also mentioned in 2 other decision(s): Guardant Health v Sophia Genetics (CFI, 23 January 2026) · Guardant Health v Sophia Genetics (CoA, 2 July 2026)
not recordednot recordednot recordedEspacenet
links not checked
mentioned in: Dhenne Avocats analysis
The statuses “asserted in litigation”, “declared essential”, “listed by a pool” and “essentiality examined by a court” are distinct and may coexist. Validity, infringement and technical essentiality are different questions. Scope: patents cited in the decisions of the Dhenne Avocats corpus, with no essentiality score or prediction.

Receive an alert

Weekly summary of new records and substantive updates matching what you follow. Address confirmed by email, unsubscribe at any time, one email per week even where several of your follows match.

Follow

Weekly summary, on Fridays.