Breaking: UPC hits NanoString with European sales ban

Managing IP is part of Legal Benchmarking Limited, 1-2 Paris Gardens, London, SE1 8ND

Copyright © Legal Benchmarking Limited and its affiliated companies 2025

Accessibility | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Modern Slavery Statement

Breaking: UPC hits NanoString with European sales ban

Munich.jpg

The decision marks the first time the Unified Patent Court has issued a preliminary injunction after an oral hearing involving both sides in a dispute

The Unified Patent Court granted US biotech company 10x Genomics a preliminary injunction against rival NanoString today, September 19, in a major first for the new court.

Presiding Judge Matthias Zigann, who handed down the order, said the UPC would decide on another PI request on October 10.

It was initially expected that there would be a decision on both applications today.

NanoString can challenge today’s decision at the UPC Court of Appeal in Luxembourg.

The order marks the first time the UPC has issued a PI after hearing oral arguments between both parties in a dispute since the court started hearing cases in June.

The UPC previously issued an ex parte injunction in a dispute between Swiss bike manufacturers myStromer and Revolt Zycling.

Today’s order comes after a hearing at the Munich local division on September 6. Sources who attended that hearing had told Managing IP that an injunction was likely.

One of 10x’s lawyers, Bardehle Pagenberg partner Tilman Müller-Stoy, described the judges as among the best-prepared he had seen in his career after the hearing.

Zigann heard the case alongside three other judges – Tobias Pichlmaier, András Kupecz, and Eric Enderlin.

The PI is the second injunction 10x has obtained from a court in Germany against NanoString so far this year.

The Munich Regional Court issued an anti-anti-suit injunction against NanoString in April, believed to be the first order of its kind in a German life sciences suit.

The order forced NanoString to withdraw an anti-suit injunction it had filed at the US District Court for the District of Delaware.

more from across site and SHARED ros bottom lb

More from across our site

Counsel explain how the USPTO’s decision to discretionarily deny institution of a PTAB case affects their advice to clients
The Life Sciences Awards announces the winners for the 6th annual awards
The UPC’s plans to roll out its new Case Management System and a setback for TikTok in India were also among the top talking points
Trademark specialist Jonathan Thomas says he’s excited to introduce his clients to other areas of Greenberg Traurig’s practice
Counsel at firms responsible for managing the highest number of registered trademarks explain the secrets behind staying organised and keeping the work flowing in
Attorneys explain what stakeholders should know about Patent Term Adjustments in Brazil, more than three years after a landmark Brazilian Supreme Court ruling
New categories have been added to reflect a changing legal and social landscape
Three sources explain why a notification by Nanjing’s IP centre in China banning AI use in patent drafting is too broad and could be difficult to enforce
Sheppard Mullin’s latest hires explain why the firm's industry expertise impressed them
Elizabeth Godfrey explains why she doesn’t believe in a ‘salesperson’ approach to BD, and reveals how AI is playing an important role at Davies Collison Cave
Gift this article