10x Genomics v NanoString Technologies (CoA, 6 August 2024)

Dhenne Avocats · 10 October 2026

Our analysis

Summary

In an order of 6 August 2024 (UPC_CoA_335/2024), the Court of Appeal, sitting in a panel different from the one that had ruled, rejected as inadmissible the application for rehearing filed by 10x Genomics and President and Fellows of Harvard College against the order of 26 February 2024 (UPC_CoA_335/2023). That order had set aside the preliminary injunction granted on 19 September 2023 by the Munich Local Division against NanoString (EP 4 108 782) and ordered 10x to bear the costs. The decision confirms that rehearing under Art. 81 UPCA is a last resort and cannot be used to reopen the assessment of evidence.

Question

Is an order that bases its technical assessment on the “assessment of the technically qualified court” and rules on costs in summary proceedings affected by a fundamental procedural defect warranting rehearing (Rule 247(c) and (e))?

Decision

Rehearing is available only against a final decision affected by one of the listed defects and is a last resort (paragraphs 14 and 15). The wording complained of expresses the panel’s qualification to assess complex technical arguments. It does not mean that a judge’s personal opinion was used as evidence (paragraph 22). The Court had relied on the patent specification, the prior art and a party expert report (paragraphs 23 to 27), and the assessment of arguments and evidence is not open to review in rehearing proceedings (paragraph 28). Rule 118.5 does not prevent a costs decision in summary proceedings: proceedings for provisional measures being separate proceedings (Art. 32(1)(c) UPCA), Rule 242.1 provides the basis for the costs decision (paragraphs 29 to 31). The application was rejected as inadmissible (paragraph 32).

Key points for practice

• Rehearing cannot be used to challenge the Court of Appeal’s technical assessment, even where it rests on the panel’s technical expertise.
• A Court of Appeal order ending provisional measures proceedings may rule on costs under Rule 242.1.

Provisions applied

Agreement on a Unified Patent Court

Arts 32(1)(c), 62, 76 and 81(1)

Rules of Procedure

Rules 118.5, 210.2, 242.1, 245, 247 and 248

Case law cited

10x Genomics v NanoString, Court of Appeal, 26 February 2024 (UPC_CoA_335/2023), the order under challenge

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.