Guardant Health v Sophia Genetics (CoA, 18 February 2026)
| Date | 18 February 2026 |
|---|---|
| Court | CoA |
| Division | Luxembourg (LU) |
| Type of action | Application Rop 223 |
| Case number(s) | UPC_CoA_19/2026 |
| Registry reference | UPC-COA-0000019/2026 |
| Parties | Guardant Health, Inc. v. Sophia Genetics SA, Sophia Genetics SAS, Sophia Genetics SRL, Sophia Genetics GmbH |
Official decision (PDF) · UPC registry entry
Case timeline
- 2 July 2026 : Sophia Genetics v Guardant Health (CoA, 2 July 2026) UPC-COA-19/2026
- 2 July 2026 : Guardant Health v Sophia Genetics (CoA, 2 July 2026) UPC-COA-19/2026
Dhenne Avocats represents claimants and defendants in European patent disputes before the Unified Patent Court, including the Paris divisions.
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
- An interim costs award in provisional proceedings is suspended only for manifest error or infringement of a fundamental procedural right (paragraphs 12 to 18).
- Practical point: challenges to the amount of an interim costs award belong in the main appeal and the costs proceedings, not in a request for suspensive effect (paragraphs 16 and 18).
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
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.
Parties
- defendantSophia Genetics SA5 decisions in the corpusFollow this party
- defendantSophia Genetics SAS5 decisions in the corpusFollow this party
- defendantSophia Genetics SRL5 decisions in the corpusFollow this party
- defendantSophia Genetics GmbH5 decisions in the corpusFollow this party
- claimantGuardant Health, Inc.6 decisions in the corpusFollow this party
Decisions in the same proceedings and documented appeals
- 18 February 2026 Guardant Health v Sophia Genetics (CoA, 18 February 2026) Application Rop 223 · UPC_CoA_19/2026
- 2 July 2026 Sophia Genetics v Guardant Health (CoA, 2 July 2026) Appeal RoP220.1 · UPC_CoA_19/2026
- 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
EP 3 443 066mentioned in: Dhenne Avocats analysis Follow this patent
Related decisions cited in the analyses
- Sophia Genetics v Guardant Health (CoA, 2 July 2026) cited in this record
- Guardant Health v Sophia Genetics (CoA, 2 July 2026) cited in this record
- Barco v Yealink (Xiamen) Network (CoA, 28 November 2025) cited in this record
- Meril Italy v Edwards Lifesciences (CoA, 25 November 2025) cited in this record
- Koninklijke Philips v Belkin (CoA, 29 October 2024) cited in this record
- Sibio v Abbott Diabetes Care (CoA, 19 August 2024) cited in this record
- ICPillar v ARM (CoA, 19 June 2024) cited in this record
- Progress Maschinen & Automation v AWM (CoA, 2 May 2024) cited in this record
- Meril Life Sciences v Edwards Lifesciences (CoA, 18 January 2024) cited in this record
- Ocado Innovation v Third Party (CoA, 6 November 2023) cited in this record
- Cardo Systems v Shenzhen Ziwu Chuangxin (CFI, 18 June 2026) cites this decision
- La Siddhi Consultancy v Athena Pharmaceutiques (CoA, 14 April 2026) cites this decision
Patents and standards
| Publication | Role in the dispute | Family | Standard and declaration | Pool | Sources |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
EP 3 443 066 | Mentioned 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 recorded | not recorded | not recorded | Espacenet links not checked mentioned in: Dhenne Avocats analysis |
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.