NanoString Technologies Europe v President and Fellows of Harvard College (CFI, 31 January 2024)

Dhenne Avocats · 10 October 2026

Our analysis

Summary

By order of 31 January 2024 following the interim conference (UPC_CFI_252/2023, ACT_551180/2023), the judge-rapporteur of the Munich Central Division prepared the oral hearing in NanoString’s revocation action against Harvard’s EP 2 794 928: a German judgment in the file need not be translated, a late document was admitted, the value of the proceedings was set at EUR 7,500,000 and the hearing of 17 April 2024 was confirmed. The order is a concrete example of case preparation before the Central Division, in particular on the ceiling for recoverable costs and late filings.

Question

With the written procedure closed, the judge-rapporteur had to settle the outstanding points: translation of document D40 (judgment of the Munich I Regional Court of 17 May 2023), admission of document D46 filed late by the claimant, the value of the proceedings for the ceiling on recoverable costs, and the timetable.

Decision

D40 need not be translated. D46 was admitted, the defendant having withdrawn its objection in return for a written response of no more than ten pages, due by 7 March 2024 and limited to the arguments based on D46. There is no basis to exclude further auxiliary requests in advance, but the judge stressed the front-loaded character of the proceedings. An application to amend a party’s case made after 15 March 2024 will be presumed to breach Rule 263.2(a). The value of the proceedings was set at EUR 7,500,000, giving a ceiling of EUR 600,000, the ceiling is a cap, not an entitlement, and the court expects details of hours, personnel, tasks and rates. The parties are to file the Court of Appeal decision expected in case UPC 2/2023 (EP 4 108 782).

Key points for practice

• The ceiling on recoverable costs does not relieve a party of showing, item by item, that its costs are reasonable and proportionate.
• The judge-rapporteur may set a date after which any amendment of a party’s case will be presumed late.

Provisions applied

Agreement on a Unified Patent Court

Art. 69

Rules of Procedure

Rules 103, 104, 105.5, 106, 152.3, 263.2(a) and 333, Preamble paragraph 7

Case law cited

Court of Appeal, case UPC 2/2023 (EP 4 108 782), decision awaited.

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.