No second PI for 10x against NanoString, UPC rules

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

Copyright © Legal Benchmarking Limited and its affiliated companies 2026

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

Cookies Settings

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 SHARED ros bottom lb

More from across our site

Christopher Stothers' arrival strengthens the firm's life sciences, technology and UPC offering as competition for top European litigators intensifies
Armstrong Teasdale’s Jim Heinen Jr discusses the challenge of balancing billables, business development and family life and explains why not all patent lawyers are science nerds
From cross-border jurisdiction to the end of the transitional period, Powell Gilbert’s Ioana Sabau and Bryce Matthewson predict the biggest talking points ahead
A wave of office launches and lateral hires reflect the draw of patent disputes, but booming AI, semiconductor and data centre markets are offering an even bigger IP opportunity
The hire of Frederick Nicolle as a partner continues Pinsent Masons' expansion while reducing Simmons’ patent prosecution offering in London to zero
The expansion into Granada forms part of a national ‘decentralisation’ strategy focused on providing proximity to research and tech businesses away from traditional hubs
Three successive wins have got the firm eyeing additional opportunities as ITC work booms
While many firms remain focused on generative AI, recent hires and practice launches suggest the next battle may be for lawyers who understand how AI is moving into the physical world
The explosion of data centres has prompted patent pool operators to create new licensing opportunities
The court struck out copyright claims brought by Ladbrokes owner Entain, saying that ownership details should have been completed before litigation began
Gift this article