Opens in a new tab

NanoString Technologies v 10x Genomics (CoA, 26 February 2024)

Date26 February 2024
CourtCoA
DivisionLuxembourg (LU)
Type of actionGeneric application
Case number(s)UPC_CoA_335/2023
Registry referenceApp_6601/2024 · ORD_6653/2024 · UPC_CoA_335/2023
Parties10x Genomics, Inc., President and Fellows of Harvard College

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

By order of 26 February 2024 (UPC_CoA_335/2023, APL_576355/2023), the Court of Appeal rejected the requests of both parties to stay the proceedings in NanoString’s appeal against the provisional measures ordered by the Munich Local Division in favour of 10x Genomics and the President and Fellows of Harvard College (EP 4 108 782). After the hearing, NanoString had filed for Chapter 11 proceedings before the Delaware Bankruptcy Court. According to the headnote, proceedings need not be stayed under Rule 311.1, first sentence, RoP where a party becomes insolvent after the oral hearing and the case is ready for decision.

Question

Does the opening of insolvency proceedings against a party after the oral hearing require a stay of the appeal under Rule 311.1 RoP?

Decision

The Court left open whether Chapter 11 proceedings amount to insolvency within Rule 311.1 RoP, since a stay was not warranted in any event. The Rule must be read in the light of Article 41(3) UPCA, which requires a fair balance between the parties’ interests and efficient, cost-effective proceedings. After the hearing, the parties have taken all their procedural steps and incurred their costs. The interest in a timely decision weighs heavily in provisional measures proceedings, and events after the hearing are not taken into account. The Court drew support from French, German, Italian and Dutch law, none of which interrupts proceedings in that situation.

Key points for practice

Provisions applied

Agreement on a Unified Patent Court
Art. 41(3)
Rules of Procedure
Rule 311.1

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_335/2023 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. 26 February 2024 NanoString Technologies v 10x Genomics (CoA, 26 February 2024) Generic application · UPC_CoA_335/2023
  2. 11 March 2024 NanoString Technologies v 10x Genomics (CoA, 11 March 2024) Appeal RoP220.1 · UPC_CoA_335/2023

    La cour d'appel infirme l'ordonnance de mesures provisoires de la division locale de Munich et rejette la demande de 10x Genomics et de Harvard, le brevet EP 4 108 782 étant plus probablement nul que valable faute d'activité inventive.

What the record states

Nature of the act
Generic application
Outcome (Dhenne Avocats summary)
La cour d'appel rejette les demandes de suspension des deux parties : l'insolvabilité survenue après l'audience, l'affaire étant en état, n'impose pas de suspendre l'instance selon la règle 311.1.
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 4 108 782
Compositions and methods for analyte detection
recorded proprietor: Harvard University		Mentioned in the analysis (role not qualified)
Also mentioned in 18 other decision(s): NanoString Technologies v 10x Genomics (CoA, 11 March 2024) · 10x Genomics v NanoString (CFI, 19 September 2023) · 10x Genomics v Bruker Spatial Biology (CFI, 11 April 2025) · 10x Genomics v Vizgen (CoA, 11 March 2025) · 10x Genomics v Vizgen (CoA, 5 March 2025) · 10x Genomics v Vizgen (CFI, 20 December 2024) · NanoString Technologies v 10x Genomics (CoA, 10 December 2024) · 10x Genomics v Vizgen (CFI, 1 November 2024)		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.