Imusyn v BAG Diagnostics (CFI, 4 August 2025)

Dhenne Avocats · 10 October 2026

Our analysis

Summary

By order of 4 August 2025 (UPC_CFI_550/2025, ACT_29036/2025), the Düsseldorf Local Division, through its presiding judge and judge rapporteur, Judge Thomas, asked the President of the Court of First Instance, with the parties’ consent, to add to the panel a technically qualified judge with expertise in IPC field G01N, in Imusyn’s application for provisional measures against BAG Diagnostics under EP 3 548 898 B1. The order confirms that a panel may, of its own motion, strengthen its technical expertise at the provisional stage where validity is challenged.

Question

May a panel hearing an application for provisional measures add a technically qualified judge of its own motion, although Rule 34 RoP refers only to the main action?

Decision

Yes. Provisional measures generally require the validity of the patent to be sufficiently secure (Art. 62(4) UPCA and Rule 211.2 RoP): the panel must form a sufficient view on validity and assess whether the patent is more likely than not invalid. The second sentence of Art. 8(5) UPCA allows the panel, after hearing the parties, to add a technically qualified judge of its own motion, including in provisional measures proceedings, even though Rule 34 RoP refers only to the main action. As the defendant challenges validity, and a counterclaim for revocation in any main action would require a technically qualified judge, it is useful for that judge to become familiar with the case now and to advise the judge rapporteur.

Key points for practice

• Practical point: a defendant that seriously challenges validity in provisional measures proceedings can expect, or request, a technically qualified judge to join the panel at that stage.

Provisions applied

Agreement on a Unified Patent Court

Arts 8(5), 18(3) and 62(4)

Rules of Procedure

Rules 34 and 211.2

Case law cited

NanoString v 10x Genomics, Court of Appeal, 26 February 2024 (UPC_CoA_335/2023), Mammut v Ortovox, Court of Appeal, 25 September 2024 (UPC_CoA_182/2024), Valeo v Magna, Düsseldorf Local Division, 31 October 2024 (UPC_CFI_347/2024), 10x Genomics v Curio Bioscience, Düsseldorf Local Division, 29 January 2024 (UPC_CFI_463/2023), Aesculap v Shanghai International, Düsseldorf Local Division, 1 May 2025 (UPC_CFI_213/2025), Aesculap v Shanghai International, Düsseldorf Local Division, 10 July 2025 (UPC_CFI_213/2025).

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.