Illumina v Element Biosciences (CFI, 1 April 2026)
| Date | 1 April 2026 |
|---|---|
| Court | CFI |
| Division | Lisbon (PT) Local Division |
| Type of action | Infringement Action |
| Case number(s) | UPC_CFI_1920/2025 |
| Registry reference | UPC-CFI-00001920/2025 |
| Parties | Illumina, Inc v. Element Biosciences, Inc. / Element Biosciences Netherlands B.V / Instrumentos de Laboratório e Científicos, LDA / |
Official decision (PDF) · UPC registry entry
Case timeline
- 22 June 2026 : Illumina v Element Biosciences (CFI, 22 June 2026) UPC-CFI-1920/2025
- 16 October 2026 : Illumina v Element Biosciences (CFI, 16 October 2026) UPC-CFI-0001920/2025
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 1 April 2026 (UPC_CFI_1920/2025), the judge-rapporteur of the Lisbon Local Division refuses to dismiss at the outset, under Rule 361 RoP, Illumina’s infringement action against Element Biosciences (EP 3 714 978), whose Statement of claim had omitted the « fluidic device » feature of claim 1. She admits a corrected Statement of claim under Rule 9 RoP. A clerical transcription error can be put right. It does not make the whole action fail.
Question
Does omitting a claim feature from the Statement of claim justify dismissal under Rule 361 RoP, and is its correction an amendment governed by Rule 263 RoP?
Decision
Refusing a Rule 361 request is a case management order, not subject to Rule 363.2 RoP (paragraphs 7 and 8). Dismissal requires a lack of foundation that is evident on a first review, assessed with proportionality in mind (paragraphs 9 to 11). The omitted feature is addressed elsewhere in the Statement of claim and the errors, acknowledged as clerical, are limited: dismissing the action would be disproportionate (paragraphs 12 to 16). The correction is a mere rectification of a mistake, not an amendment under Rule 263 RoP, and does not unreasonably prejudice the defendants (paragraphs 19 to 21), who may respond within 10 days on the corrections alone (paragraph 22).
Key points for practice
- Practical point: a transcription error in the Statement of claim is cured by a request under Rule 9 RoP, a defendant who relied on it obtains a right of reply limited to the corrections.
Provisions applied
- Rules of Procedure
- Rules 9, 263, 333, 361 and 363.2
- Case law cited
- Court of Appeal, 21 August 2024 (UPC_CoA_454/2024), Paris Central Division, 16 September 2024 (UPC_CFI_164/2024), Court of Appeal, 21 November 2024 (UPC_CoA_456/2024)
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.
Decisions in the same proceedings
Going further
Lexicon: Patent infringement action.
Publications by Matthieu Dhenne: Pleading the Long Arm: What a UPC Statement of Claim Must Carry Beyond Jurisdiction (Kluwer Patent Blog).
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
- defendantElement Biosciences, Inc.3 decisions in the corpusFollow this party
- claimantIllumina, Inc.2 decisions in the corpusFollow this party
- defendantElement Biosciences Netherlands B.V.2 decisions in the corpusFollow this party
- defendantInstrumentos de Laboratório e Científicos, LDA /2 decisions in the corpusFollow this party
Decisions in the same proceedings and documented appeals
- 1 April 2026 Illumina v Element Biosciences (CFI, 1 April 2026) Infringement Action · UPC_CFI_1920/2025
- 22 June 2026 Illumina v Element Biosciences (CFI, 22 June 2026) Infringement Action · UPC_CFI_1920/2025
La formation instruira ensemble l’action en contrefaçon et la demande reconventionnelle en nullité. La conférence intermédiaire est fixée au 16 octobre 2026 et l’audience au 17 décembre 2026.
- 16 October 2026 Illumina v Element Biosciences (CFI, 16 October 2026) Infringement Action · UPC_CFI_1920/2025
La juge rapporteure fixe la valeur de l'action en contrefaçon à 8 millions d'euros et celle de la demande reconventionnelle en nullité à 12 millions d'euros, et arrête l'organisation de l'audience du 17 décembre 2026.
What the record states
- Nature of the act
- Infringement Action
- Outcome (Dhenne Avocats summary)
- La demande de rejet de l'action fondée sur la règle 361 est rejetée et le mémoire en demande corrigé remplace le mémoire initial, les défenderesses pouvant répondre sous 10 jours.
- Appeal
- No appeal documented in the corpus, this does not mean that no appeal was lodged.
- Instance
- First-instance decision, whether it has become final is not recorded.
Patents mentioned
EP 3 714 978mentioned in: Dhenne Avocats analysis Follow this patent
Related decisions cited in the analyses
- Illumina v Element Biosciences (CFI, 22 June 2026) cited in this record
- Illumina v Element Biosciences (CFI, 16 October 2026) cites this decision
Patents and standards
| Publication | Role in the dispute | Family | Standard and declaration | Pool | Sources |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
EP 3 714 978 | Mentioned in the analysis (role not qualified) Also mentioned in 2 other decision(s): Illumina v Element Biosciences (CFI, 22 June 2026) · Illumina v Element Biosciences (CFI, 16 October 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.