10x Genomics v NanoString Technologies (CFI, 13 January 2025)
| Date | 13 January 2025 |
|---|---|
| Court | CFI |
| Division | Munich (DE) Local Division |
| Type of action | Application Rop 333 |
| Registry reference | App_58910/2024 · ORD_60352/2024 |
| Parties | President and Fellows of Harvard College |
Official decision (PDF) · UPC registry entry
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
By a revised order of 13 January 2025 (UPC_CFI_298/2023), panel 1 of the Munich Local Division, on the application of President and Fellows of Harvard College (claimant 2, alongside 10x Genomics, against NanoString Technologies), modified the judge-rapporteur’s order of 14 October 2024. That order, while staying the proceedings pending the decision of the EPO Opposition Division, required 55 auxiliary requests to amend the patent to be cut to a single-digit number. The panel removed that cap and applied a functional test tied to the scope of the revocation counterclaim.
Question
May the court cap in advance, at a single-digit number, the auxiliary requests to amend the patent where parallel EPO opposition proceedings are pending?
Decision
The panel simply ordered claimant 2 to file its auxiliary requests within 20 days of the Opposition Division’s decision. A reasonable number of requests depends on the scope of the counterclaim. Given the complexity of the case and the number of invalidity grounds, 55 requests were not unreasonable, and fairness under Art. 42 UPCA also protects the counterclaim defendant (section II.1). Requests still pending before the EPO when it decides will be allowed, although their number may affect the time limits for reply, and shorter deadlines must be considered (section II.2). A consolidated version, with grounds, is required if amendments are made (section II.3).
Key points for practice
- Practical point: a patentee that mirrors the auxiliary requests pending before the EPO may maintain them at the UPC, possibly at the cost of adjusted reply deadlines.
Provisions applied
- Agreement on a Unified Patent Court
- Art. 42 and Art. 73(1)
- Rules of Procedure
- Rules 30.1(c) and 220.2
- Case law cited
- Paris Central Division (UPC_CFI_255/2023, ACT_551308/2023)
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.
Going further
Lexicon: Written procedure (UPC).
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.
Proceedings
Parties
- claimantPresident and Fellows of Harvard College29 decisions in the corpusFollow this party
Decisions in the same proceedings and documented appeals
What the record states
- Nature of the act
- Application Rop 333
- Outcome (Dhenne Avocats summary)
- La formation supprime la limite à un chiffre des requêtes subsidiaires et ordonne leur dépôt dans les 20 jours de la décision de l'OEB, les requêtes pendantes devant l'OEB étant admises.
- 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.
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.