Guardant Health v Sophia Genetics (CoA, 2 July 2026)

Dhenne Avocats · 10 October 2026

Our analysis

Summary

In an order of 2 July 2026 (UPC_CoA_19/2026), the Court of Appeal (Judges Kalden, presiding, Rombach, rapporteur, Simonsson, and technically qualified Judges Burrichter and Gustafsson) dismisses Guardant Health’s appeal against the order of the Paris Local Division of 23 January 2026 (UPC_CFI_808/2025) refusing provisional measures against Sophia Genetics SA and three group companies on unitary patent EP 3 443 066 (cancer detection by sequencing circulating DNA). It nonetheless rejects the first-instance ground: added matter is not established. The appeal fails for lack of urgency alone. The first-instance interim award of costs is reduced from EUR 400,000 to EUR 300,000.

The order is chiefly useful for its detailed analysis of urgency: time runs from when the patentee ought to have known of the infringement, and waiting to file a single application covering several patents does not justify delay.

Facts and procedure

On 29 August 2025 Guardant applied for provisional measures on four patents against the « MSK-ACCESS powered with SOPHiA DDM » offering. The Paris Local Division noted a withdrawal for one of them, rejected the applications on the others, found EP 3 443 066 likely invalid for added matter and ordered Guardant to pay an interim award of costs of EUR 400,000 (paragraphs 9 to 12). Guardant appealed on that patent and on costs only. Sophia cross-appealed. On 18 February 2026 the Court of Appeal had refused suspensive effect for the interim costs order (paragraph 15). The hearing took place on 18 May 2026.

The applicable law

The Court applies Rule 211.4 on urgency, Rule 206.2(d), Art. 138(1)(c) and Art. 123(2) EPC on added matter, Arts. 4, 8(1) and 71b of Regulation 1215/2012 on international jurisdiction over Spain and Switzerland, and Art. 69 UPCA on costs.

Question

Is the patent likely invalid for added matter, and did Guardant act with the diligence required to meet the urgency requirement?

Decision

International jurisdiction is accepted for Spain and Switzerland (paragraphs 23 to 26). After construing the features of claim 1 (paragraphs 34 to 82), the Court holds, contrary to the division, that the claimed subject matter is disclosed in the application as filed, Example 2 being taken into account as part of the application as a whole (paragraphs 83 to 107).

Urgency is lacking. Guardant ought to have known of the infringing features by 1 May 2025 from Sophia’s user manual, and to have completed its investigation of activities in the UPC territory, Spain and Switzerland by 15 May 2025 (paragraphs 116 to 139). Filing on 29 August 2025 was an unreasonable delay: the explanations based on drafting and technical analysis are unsubstantiated (paragraphs 140 to 146). A patentee may file separate applications for different patents, but the delay specific to the patent at issue is not justified (paragraphs 114 and 115), and waiting for a reply to a UK warning letter concerning another patent makes no difference (paragraph 147). The other requirements are not examined (paragraph 148). The cross-appeal is inadmissible, since urgency is part of the main appeal (paragraphs 150 to 153). The first-instance interim award of costs is set at 50% of the ceiling, namely EUR 300,000, and an interim award of EUR 100,000 is made for the appeal (paragraphs 165 to 171), the value of the appeal is set at EUR 1,800,000.

Key points for practice

• There is no general duty to monitor the market, but specific indications of infringement trigger a duty to investigate diligently. A document revealing infringement of one patent cannot be ignored for the other patents it concerns.
• For a legal entity, urgency runs from the knowledge of the authorised body or of a person suitably placed to act.
• Withdrawal of an application generally makes the defendant the successful party for costs (Art. 69 UPCA).
• Practical point: a patentee preparing an application for provisional measures should document when it learned of the infringement and each step of its investigation, and should not delay the application in order to extend it to other patents.

Provisions applied

Agreement on a Unified Patent Court

Art. 69

Rules of Procedure

Rules 206.2, 211.1, 211.4, 220.1, 222.2, 237, 242.1 and 371.4

European Patent Convention

Art. 123, Art. 138

Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012

Arts. 4, 8 and 71b

Case law cited

NanoString v 10x Genomics, Court of Appeal, 26 February 2024, VusionGroup v Hanshow, Court of Appeal, 13 May 2024, Mammut v Ortovox, Court of Appeal, 25 September 2024, Meril v Edwards, Court of Appeal, 21 November 2024, Abbott v Sibio, Court of Appeal, 14 February 2025, Sumi Agro v Syngenta, Court of Appeal, 3 March 2025 (UPC_CoA_523/2024), Insulet v EOFlow, Court of Appeal, 30 April 2025 (UPC_CoA_768/2024), Court of Appeal, 19 June 2025 (UPC_CoA_402/2024), Amgen v Sanofi, Court of Appeal, 25 November 2025, Meril v Edwards, Court of Appeal, 25 November 2025, Barco v Yealink, Court of Appeal, 28 November 2025, Dyson v Dreame, Court of Appeal, 6 March 2026, Abbott v Sinocare, Court of Appeal, 17 April 2026, Hefei Xinhu Canned Motor Pump v Grundfos, Court of Appeal, 27 May 2026

Related decisions

• Guardant Health v Sophia Genetics SA, 23 January 2026, Paris Local Division order under appeal.
• Guardant Health v Sophia Genetics SA, 18 February 2026, suspensive effect refused for the interim costs order.

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.