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

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

Sheppard has added quantum and robotics expertise to its AI industry team to help clients navigate questions around inventorship and IP infringement
The 2026 Americas ceremony recognised outstanding firms and practitioners, along with highlighting impact cases of the year
A development concerning Stephen Thaler’s AI copyright application in India and an integration between IPH group firms were also among the top talking points
As concerns around the little-known litigation tool increase, practitioners say they are educating their clients on how it can be most effective
Kilburn & Strode and Mewburn Ellis are just two firms that have invested heavily in office space – a sign that the legal industry is serious about in-person working
In major recent developments, Dyson snagged another win against Hong Kong-based competitor Dreame and a new AI-powered UPC platform was launched
Mohit and Sidhant Goel decided not to pursue an interim injunction application so that their client, Communications Components Antenna, could benefit from a fast-track trial
Anita Cade, head of Ashurst’s IP and media team in Australia, discusses why law firms that can pull together capability across different practice areas and jurisdictions stand to gain
INTA’s CEO says London-based firms have registered fewer delegates compared to past meetings in San Diego and Atlanta, and questions the 'ethics' of trying to participate without registering
Lobbies and interest groups are among the interveners in a major dispute over whether courts can set patent pool rates
Gift this article