Opens in a new tab

President and Fellows of Harvard College v NanoString Technologies Europe (CoA, 28 May 2025)

Date28 May 2025
CourtCoA
DivisionLuxembourg (LU)
Type of actionGeneric application
Registry referenceApp_24663/2025 · ORD_25361/2025
PartiesPresident and Fellows of Harvard College

Official decision (PDF) · UPC registry entry

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

By order of 28 May 2025, the Court of Appeal granted Harvard (President and Fellows of Harvard College), the appellant, reimbursement of 40% of the appeal court fees, not the 60% it sought, after NanoString Technologies Europe withdrew its revocation action against EP 2 794 928 (UPC_CoA_808/2024). The Court clarifies when the written procedure on appeal closes, which governs the rate of reimbursement.

Question

Was a withdrawal made after the respondent’s statement of response, but before any hearing, made before the closure of the written procedure (60%) or only before the closure of the interim procedure (40%)?

Decision

On appeal, the written procedure is limited to the statement of appeal and grounds for the appellant, and to the statement of response for the respondent, unless a cross-appeal is lodged. The interim procedure then begins (paragraph 7). The written procedure closed when NanoString lodged its statement of response on 16 April 2025 and the Rule 235 time limit expired. The judge rapporteur’s order of 5 May 2025 did not extend it, being a case management step within the interim procedure (paragraph 8). Since the withdrawal on 14 May 2025 came later, only the 40% rate under Rule 370.9(b)(ii) applies (paragraph 9).

Key points for practice

Provisions applied

Rules of Procedure
Rules 235, 237, 238, 239.1 and 370.9(b)
Case law cited
Scandit v Hand Held Products, Court of Appeal, 1 November 2024

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.


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

No case number recorded in this record.

Parties

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

Decisions in the same proceedings and documented appeals

No other decision in the corpus bears the same case number, and no appeal is documented in the corpus to date.

What the record states

Nature of the act
Generic application
Outcome (Dhenne Avocats summary)
Le désistement étant intervenu après la clôture de la procédure écrite d'appel, marquée par le dépôt du mémoire en réponse, Harvard n'obtient que 40 % des frais de justice d'appel au titre de la règle 370.9(b)(ii).
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 2 794 928
Compositions and methods for analyte detection
recorded proprietor: Harvard University
Mentioned in the analysis (role not qualified)
Also mentioned in 8 other decision(s): NanoString Technologies Europe v President and Fellows of Harvard Coll · NanoString Technologies Europe v President and Fellows of Harvard Coll · NanoString Technologies Europe v President and Fellows of Harvard Coll · NanoString Technologies Europe v President and Fellows of Harvard Coll · NanoString Technologies Europe v President and Fellows of Harvard Coll · NanoString Technologies Europe v President and Fellows of Harvard Coll · NanoString Technologies Europe v President and Fellows of Harvard Coll · NanoString v President and Fellows of Harvard College (CFI, 25 July 20
not recordednot recordednot recordedEspacenet · European Patent Register
existence and title of the publication checked on 30 October 2026 (Google Patents, Espacenet and Register links are not checked automatically)
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.