No second PI for 10x against NanoString, UPC rules

Managing IP is part of Legal Benchmarking Limited, 4 Bouverie Street, London, EC4Y 8AX

Copyright © Legal Benchmarking Limited and its affiliated companies 2024

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

No second PI for 10x against NanoString, UPC rules

Munich.jpg
Munich

Judge Matthias Zigann said the panel wasn’t convinced that NanoString had infringed the 10x Genomics patent

The Unified Patent Court refused to grant a second preliminary injunction for 10x Genomics against rival biotech company NanoString in Munich today, October 10.

Presiding judge Matthias Zigann said the panel was unconvinced that NanoString had infringed 10x’s patent.

The judge said the panel’s findings on infringement and validity were not prejudicial on the main proceedings.

10x won the first full PI hearing in the court’s history last month over a separate but related patent. That ruling meant NanoString cannot sell its allegedly infringing products in 17 European countries while proceedings are ongoing.

The lawsuit concerns NanoString’s CosMx Spatial Molecular Imager device and CosMx reagents for RNA detection.

10x claimed NanoString infringed patents related to Xenium, the company’s own RNA analysis tool that it launched in December 2022.

There is parallel litigation between the parties at the US District Court for the District of Delaware, where 10x has also filed two infringement lawsuits.

Trials have been scheduled in Delaware in November 2023 and September 2024.

NanoString has argued that 10x’s technology was originally developed at Harvard University with grant funding from the US National Institutes of Health, with the intention it would be made widely available via licensing.

Harvard exclusively licensed the technology to ReadCoor, which was acquired by 10x in 2020.

“In contrast with the promises made in the grant application, 10x is now using the acquired ReadCoor patents in lawsuits designed to reduce the scientific community’s access to innovative technologies intended for broad access,” NanoString has claimed.

Germany’s Federal Patent Court has also issued a preliminary opinion in which it found the claims of one of 10x’s key patents to be valid. An oral hearing has been scheduled for May 2024.

The Munich Regional Court, meanwhile, granted an injunction in favour of 10x in May this year. NanoString has appealed against that ruling to the Higher Regional Court.

10x may yet appeal the latest UPC ruling. The UPC has yet to schedule a date for a trial on the merits of the case.

more from across site and ros bottom lb

More from across our site

The High Court’s decision in WaterRower v Liking could have signalled the start of a new approach to determining whether designs can benefit from copyright protection
Maohua Wang, head of the IP group at King & Wood Mallesons in China, explains how the firm’s Eversheds deal affected the IP team and how his team meets clients’ litigation needs
Firms that advise generics businesses reflect on whether they’re seeing more aggressive tactics from innovators and how they’re managing their practices
Suspicions concerning AI in the legal space, and another copyright win for Ed Sheeran were among the biggest IP developments this week
Michael Sitzman, a life sciences litigator, explains how McDermott’s busy schedule at the UPC convinced him to join
The UK’s top court will hand down the decision next week, 17 months after hearing arguments in the crucial trademark dispute
Ceyda Maisami explains why HP is becoming more vocal in its SEP arguments and reveals why the company has transformed the way it engages with outside counsel
In the latest UPC update, we examine a ruling on director liability, another on the Gillette defence, and look ahead to cases concerning medical devices
Burak Yüceel outlines six characteristics that make a successful IP practitioner and explains why Alan Turing is an inspiration
Lawyers at Dentons unpick the findings of a survey that revealed that businesses tend to focus on reactive rather than proactive use of AI when performing IP evaluations
Gift this article