OXFORD NANOPORE v MGI TECH (CFI, 20 July 2026)
| Date | 20 July 2026 |
|---|---|
| Court | CFI |
| Division | Munich (DE) Local Division |
| Type of action | Application for provisional measures |
| Case number(s) | UPC_CFI_2307/2026 |
| Registry reference | UPC-CFI-0002307/2026 |
| Parties | OXFORD NANOPORE TECHNOLOGIES PLC v. MGI TECH GmbH, MGI TECH CO., LIMITED, BGI HANGZHOU CYCLONESEQ TECHNOLOGY CO., LTD, SHENZHEN BGI GENOMICS C… |
Official decision (PDF) · UPC registry entry
Case timeline
- 17 September 2026 : OXFORD NANOPORE v MGI TECH (CFI, 17 September 2026) UPC-CFI-0002307/2026
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 17 July 2026 (UPC_CFI_2307/2026), the judge-rapporteur of the Munich Local Division rejected MGI TECH GmbH’s (Respondent 1) application to extend to 31 July 2026, or at least to 27 July, the deadline of 24 July for its objection in Oxford Nanopore’s provisional measures proceedings. The order makes clear that, in interim proceedings, a deadline set as a calendar date balances the right to be heard against speed, and does not move with difficulties in accessing the case management system (CMS).
Question
Should a calendar deadline for the objection in provisional measures proceedings be extended because of CMS access problems, and does the applicant’s conditional agreement amount to consent?
Decision
The application under Rule 9.3(a) RoP is rejected (paragraph 11). The judge deliberately set a date rather than a period running from service, to reconcile the respondents’ right to be heard, Oxford’s right to swift relief and the panel’s preparation time. Respondent 1 has more than two weeks from service on 7 July and did not offer to forgo the oral hearing in return (paragraphs 12 and 13). The remaining time is sufficient: the patents and allegations are known from the Australian proceedings, two of the four patents have been withdrawn and the respondent’s team is substantial (paragraph 14). Oxford’s agreement was conditional on the hearing date being kept, which any extension would have moved, so there was no consent (paragraph 15).
Key points for practice
- Practical point: in provisional measures proceedings, an extension request stands a better chance if it comes with something that protects the timetable, such as waiving the oral hearing (paragraph 13).
Provisions applied
- Rules of Procedure
- Rules 9.3(a), 102.2, 206, 209.1(a) and 333
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.
Decisions in the same proceedings
Going further
Lexicon: Application for a preliminary injunction, Order to preserve evidence (UPC).
Publications by Matthieu Dhenne: The Launch Letter: How Generics and Biosimilars Should Write to Avoid UPC Urgency (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
- claimantOXFORD NANOPORE TECHNOLOGIES PLC2 decisions in the corpusFollow this party
- defendantMGI TECH GmbH2 decisions in the corpusFollow this party
- defendantMGI TECH CO2 decisions in the corpusFollow this party
- defendantLIMITED2 decisions in the corpusFollow this party
- defendantBGI HANGZHOU CYCLONESEQ TECHNOLOGY CO2 decisions in the corpusFollow this party
- defendantLTD5 decisions in the corpusFollow this party
- defendantSHENZHEN BGI GENOMICS C2 decisions in the corpusFollow this party
Decisions in the same proceedings and documented appeals
- 20 July 2026 OXFORD NANOPORE v MGI TECH (CFI, 20 July 2026) Application for provisional measures · UPC_CFI_2307/2026
- 17 September 2026 OXFORD NANOPORE v MGI TECH (CFI, 17 September 2026) Application for provisional measures · UPC_CFI_2307/2026
La division locale de Munich accorde à Oxford Nanopore, contre MGI TECH GmbH, des mesures provisoires fondées sur EP 2 422 198 et EP 2 715 343 (injonction pour plusieurs États de la JUB et le Royaume-Uni, la Suisse, le Liechtenstein et l'Irlande, remise à huissier, informations, astreintes), sans garantie, en imputant …
What the record states
- Nature of the act
- Application for provisional measures
- Outcome (Dhenne Avocats summary)
- La demande de prorogation du délai d'opposition fixé au 24 juillet 2026 est rejetée, le délai calendaire étant suffisant et l'accord conditionnel du demandeur ne valant pas consentement.
- 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.
Related decisions cited in the analyses
- OXFORD NANOPORE v MGI TECH (CFI, 17 September 2026) cited in this record
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.