Opens in a new tab

OXFORD NANOPORE v MGI TECH (CFI, 20 July 2026)

Date20 July 2026
CourtCFI
DivisionMunich (DE) Local Division
Type of actionApplication for provisional measures
Case number(s)UPC_CFI_2307/2026
Registry referenceUPC-CFI-0002307/2026
PartiesOXFORD 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

Dhenne Avocats represents claimants and defendants in European patent disputes before the Unified Patent Court, including the Paris divisions.

Contact the firm

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is sufficient: the patents and allegations are known from the Australian proceedings, two of the four patents have been withdrawn and the respondent’s team is substantial (paragraph 14).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

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
Only the official text is authoritative. A machine translation is never presented as official, republishing a third-party document requires a verified basis in rights, and a link to the source is preferred.

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.

Proceedings

  • UPC_CFI_2307/2026 official number

Follow this case

Parties

Exact name as it appears in the record, group affiliation only where sourced and dated.

Decisions in the same proceedings and documented appeals

  1. 20 July 2026 OXFORD NANOPORE v MGI TECH (CFI, 20 July 2026) Application for provisional measures · UPC_CFI_2307/2026
  2. 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

Scope: Dhenne Avocats corpus. Registry-based links are marked “official number”; links derived from the analyses are marked as such. An erroneous link can be withdrawn without deleting any 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.

Follow

Weekly summary, on Fridays.