NanoString Technologies Europe v President and Fellows of Harvard College (CFI, 30 October 2023)

Dhenne Avocats · 10 October 2026

Our analysis

Summary

By order of 30 October 2023 (UPC_CFI_252/2023, ORD_574057/2023), the judge-rapporteur of the Munich Central Division ordered NanoString Technologies Europe, claimant in the revocation action against President and Fellows of Harvard College’s EP 2 794 928, to provide security for costs of EUR 300,000 within six weeks, by deposit or bank guarantee. He rejected as premature the request for a default decision should security not be provided, and granted both parties leave to appeal. The order relies on the claimant’s UK seat and its group’s financial position.

Question

Must a revocation claimant established in the United Kingdom provide security for costs under Art. 69(4) UPCA and Rule 158.1 RoP, and in what amount?

Decision

The Court has discretion, guided by the other party’s financial position and the likelihood that a costs order will not be recoverable or enforceable. Since Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 no longer applies to the United Kingdom, which is not a party to the Lugano Convention, enforcing a costs order there involves added burden and uncertainty. The claimant’s position is closely tied to that of its parent company, which had itself described an injunction as an existential threat. The group’s long-term debts exceed its cash. Security is proportionate. The amount of EUR 300,000 is below the EUR 600,000 ceiling in the scale, as no information on actual costs was given, and further security may be sought later.

Key points for practice

• A claimant’s seat in the United Kingdom weighs in favour of security, since neither Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 nor the Lugano Convention applies there.
• Practical point: a defendant seeking security should quantify its expected costs, since the scale of ceilings is not a default amount.

Provisions applied

Agreement on a Unified Patent Court

Arts 54, 59 to 62, 69(4) and 73(2)(b)(ii)

Rules of Procedure

Preamble, paragraph 8, Rules 9.1, 19, 48, 158.1, 158.2, 158.4, 158.5, 220.2, 224.1(b), 264 and 355

Other provisions

Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012, Art. 36(1), Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, Arts 47 and 52(1), 2007 Lugano Convention

Case law cited

AIM Sport Vision v Supponor, Helsinki Local Division, 20 October 2023, Edwards Lifesciences v Meril, Munich Local Division, 29 September 2023, 10x Genomics v NanoString, Munich Local Division, 19 September 2023, CJEU, 15 September 2016, Joined Cases C-439/14 and C-488/14

Related decisions

• President and Fellows of Harvard College v NanoString Technologies Europe, 4 October 2023, order deferring the preliminary objection to the main proceedings.

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.