GXD-Bio v Myriad Genetics (CFI, 14 February 2025)

Dhenne Avocats · 10 October 2026

Our analysis

Summary

By an order of 14 February 2025 (ORD_68782/2024, UPC_CFI_437/2024), Ulrike Voß, judge rapporteur in the Munich Local Division, rejected the preliminary objection raised by eight Myriad group companies sued by GXD-Bio Corporation for infringement of EP 3 346 403. The defendants challenged the UPC’s competence over acts preceding GXD-Bio’s registration as proprietor, the related claims having been assigned by the former proprietors. The judge treated this as a question of standing, belonging to the merits, and granted leave to appeal.

Question

Does a challenge to the claimant’s right to sue for acts preceding its entry in the register, based on Arts 47 and 68 UPCA, fall within the preliminary objection to jurisdiction under Rule 19.1?

Decision

The grounds for a preliminary objection listed in Rule 19.1 are exhaustive (paragraph 13, citing Aylo v Dish). The objections concerned standing and substantive entitlement, not jurisdiction under Art. 32 UPCA, which says nothing about who may bring an action (paragraphs 14 and 15). Arts 47 and 68 are not implicitly part of Art. 32, as the structure of the UPCA confirms (paragraph 16). These issues belong to the main proceedings (paragraph 17). Subject-matter jurisdiction follows from Arts 32(1)(a), 2(g) and 3(c) UPCA, the patent not having expired by 1 June 2023 (paragraph 18). The auxiliary request to decide the objection in the main proceedings failed for the same reasons (paragraph 19). Leave to appeal was granted, since the question of law concerns many cases (paragraph 21).

Key points for practice

• A challenge to standing for the period before the assignee’s registration is argued on the merits rather than by way of preliminary objection.
• Leave to appeal under Rule 220.2 may be granted where the jurisdictional question is relevant to many cases.

Provisions applied

Agreement on a Unified Patent Court

Arts 2(g), 3(c), 32(1)(a), 47 and 68(1)

Rules of Procedure

Rules 19.1, 20.1, 21.1 and 220.2, recital 8

Case law cited

Aylo v Dish, Court of Appeal, 3 September 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.