Bruker Spatial Biology v 10x Genomics (CoA, 1 October 2025)

Date	1 October 2025
Court	CoA
Division	Luxembourg (LU)
Type of action	Appeal RoP220.1
Case number(s)	UPC_CoA_681/2025
Registry reference	UPC_CoA_681/2025
Parties	Bruker Spatial Biology, Inc., Luxendo GmbH, Bruker Nederland B.V. v. 10x Genomics, Inc., President 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 1 October 2025 (UPC_CoA_681/2025), the Court of Appeal rejects Bruker’s appeal against the order of the Munich Local Division of 16 July 2025 which, following a settlement and the withdrawal of the proceedings, had reimbursed only 60% of the court fees (EUR 151,800 out of EUR 253,000) paid for an application for compensation for damage caused by provisional measures that had been revoked (Art. 60(9) UPCA and Rule 213.2 RoP). The order confirms that such an application opens separate proceedings for the determination of damages, attracting both the fixed fee and the value-based fee.

Question

Is an application for compensation under Rule 213.2 RoP, filed after provisional measures have been revoked, subject to its own court fees, or are those covered by the fee paid by the party that applied for the provisional measures?

Decision

The appeal is admissible under Rule 220.1(a) RoP, since the order brings the proceedings to an end (paragraphs 10 and 11). A request to lay open books under Rule 213.2 RoP falls within the procedure for the determination of damages in Chapter 4 of Part 1 RoP (paragraphs 13 and 14). Under Rules 125, 132, 354.2, 370.2(e) and 370.3 RoP, the applicant is liable for the fixed fee and the value-based fee (paragraphs 15 and 16), combining the request with a claim on liability does not reduce the fees (paragraph 18). For the appeal, absent a specific fee, the fee for the most comparable case, an appeal against a determination of damages, applies (paragraph 21). The Court makes no costs order for the appeal (paragraph 22).

Key points for practice

A party seeking compensation for damage caused by revoked provisional measures should budget for court fees comparable to those in proceedings for the determination of damages (paragraph 16).
On withdrawal, reimbursement follows the ordinary rules of the Table of Fees. The fee paid by the other side for the provisional measures does not cover the compensation application (paragraphs 17 and 18).

Provisions applied

Agreement on a Unified Patent Court: Art. 36(3) and Art. 60(9)
Rules of Procedure: Rules 125, 131.1(c), 132, 141 to 144, 213.2, 220.1(a), 354.2, 370.1, 370.2(e), 370.3 and 370.5
Case law cited: Meril v Edwards Lifesciences, Court of Appeal, 15 February 2024.

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

UPC_CoA_681/2025 official number

Follow this case

Parties

defendant10x Genomics, Inc.57 decisions in the corpus Follow this party
claimantBruker Spatial Biology, Inc.Follow this party
claimantLuxendo GmbHFollow this party
claimantBruker Nederland B.V.Follow this party
defendantPresident and Fellows of Harvard College29 decisions in the corpus Follow this party

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: Appeal RoP220.1
Outcome (Dhenne Avocats summary): La cour d’appel rejette l’appel de Bruker : la demande de réparation du préjudice causé par des mesures provisoires annulées relève de la procédure de fixation des dommages et intérêts et supporte la taxe fixe et la taxe proportionnelle.
Appeal: Decision of the Court of Appeal.
Instance: Court of Appeal decision.

Related decisions cited in the analyses

Meril v Edwards Lifesciences (CoA, 15 February 2024) cited in this record
Maxell v Samsung Electronics (CFI, 22 September 2026) cites this decision

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.

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.