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

Koen Bijvank of Brinkhof and Johannes Heselberger of Bardehle Pagenberg discuss the Amgen v Sanofi case and why it will be cited frequently
View the official winners of the 2025 Social Impact EMEA Awards
King & Wood Mallesons will break into two entities, 14 years after a merger between a Chinese and an Australian firm created the combined outfit
Teams from Shakespeare Martineau and DWF will take centre stage in a dispute concerning the registrability of dairy terminology in plant-based products
Senem Kayahan, attorney and founder at PatentSe, discusses how she divides prosecution tasks, and reveals the importance of empathetic client advice
The association’s Australian group has filed a formal complaint against the choice of venue, citing Dubai as an unsafe environment for the LGBTQIA+ community
Firm says appointment of Nick McDonald will boost its expertise in cross-border disputes, including at the Unified Patent Court
In the final episode of a podcast series celebrating the tenth anniversary of IP Inclusive, we discuss the IP Inclusive Charter and the senior leaders’ pledge
Law firms are integrating AI to remain competitive, and some are noticing an impact on traditional training and billing models
IP partners are among those advising on Netflix's planned $82.7bn acquisition of Warner, which has been rivalled by a $108.4bn bid by Paramount
Gift this article