Guardant Health v Sophia Genetics (CoA, 17 April 2026)
| Date | 17 April 2026 |
|---|---|
| Court | CoA |
| Division | Luxembourg (LU) |
| Type of action | Application to leave to appeal a cost decision (RoP221) |
| Case number(s) | UPC_CoA_49/2026 |
| Registry reference | UPC-COA-0000049/2026 |
| Parties | Guardant Health, Inc. v. Sophia Genetics SA, Sophia Genetics SAS, Sophia Genetics SRL, Sophia Genetics GmbH |
| Language | English |
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.
Dhenne Avocats · 10 October 2026
Our analysis
Summary
By an order of 17 April 2026 (UPC_CoA_49/2026), the standing judge of the Court of Appeal grants Guardant Health leave to appeal the Paris Local Division’s order of 16 March 2026, which had ordered it to pay EUR 600,000 in representation costs to Sophia Genetics after its application for provisional measures failed. She refuses, however, to join that appeal to the pending appeal on the provisional measures (UPC_CoA_19/2026). The order confirms that cost assessment is a separate procedure with its own route of appeal.
Question
Should leave to appeal the cost decision be granted, and can that appeal be joined to the substantive appeal on the provisional measures?
Decision
Leave is granted: the cost decision should have waited until Guardant had access to the unredacted application and exhibit SG106 and could comment on them, which Sophia did not dispute (paragraph 13). Joinder is refused, since cost assessment is a separate procedure (Rules 150 et seq.) with its own appeal (Rules 157 and 221), decided by the standing judge once leave is granted (Rule 221.5, paragraphs 14 and 15). Guardant must file its submission by 4 May 2026 and Sophia respond by 18 May 2026 (paragraph 16).
Key points for practice
- A cost decision made before the paying party could access the confidential material on which it rests justifies leave to appeal.
- The cost appeal runs on its own timetable before the standing judge and cannot be grafted onto the substantive appeal.
Provisions applied
- Agreement on a Unified Patent Court
- Art. 76(2)
- Rules of Procedure
- Rules 150, 157, 220.3 and 221
- Case law cited
- Hanshow v VusionGroup, Court of Appeal, 29 July 2024, Rematec v Europe Forestry, Court of Appeal, 30 March 2026
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.
Going further
Lexicon: Unitary patent, Local and central divisions (UPC).
Dhenne Avocats blog: The Transitional Period and the UPC: Coordinating Two Judicial Orders.
Publications by Matthieu Dhenne: Four Questions That Decide a UPC Market Entry, Pleading the Long Arm: What a UPC Statement of Claim Must Carry Beyond Jurisdiction (Kluwer Patent Blog).