Successful appeal deprives penalty payment of basis

​
Darren Smyth
​
January 10, 2025
#
UPC
Table of contents
  • Toc Heading
  • Toc Heading

Nanostring v 10x Genomics UPC_CoA_470/2023

Order of 10 December 2024 (ORD_598533/2023)

As we previously reported, the Munich Local Division of the UPC imposed a penalty payment against Nanostring for non-compliance with the provisional injunction it had granted. As well as successfully appealing the injunction decision, Nanostring appealed the penalty payment.

The Court of Appeal considered that the revocation of an order granting a provisional injunction will, as a general rule, have retroactive effect. The order is revoked because it has been established by a final judgment of the Court of Appeal that the order should not have been made. A revoked order must therefore be regarded as never having had any legal effect. Therefore, the Court of Appeal reasoned that the revocation of an order granting a provisional injunction prohibiting the continuation of infringements subject to a recurring penalty removes the legal basis for any subsequent decision ordering the payment of a penalty, even if that decision relates to alleged breaches of the provisional injunction prior to the revocation.

Accordingly, the Court of Appeal revoked the order relating to the penalty payment, on the ground that its basis was removed by the successful appeal of the provisional injunction. The Registry was instructed to refund to Nanostring the penalty payment.

Recent Case Reports

See all Case Reports

UPC Court of appeal issues final decision, despite no finding on infringement at first instance
30 March 2026
In Rematec v Europe Forestry, the UPC Court of Appeal overturned the Mannheim Local Division’s revocation of the patent and, applying Article 75(1) UPCA, issued a final decision on both validity and infringement despite no infringement finding at first instance. The Court adopted a narrower, description‑led approach to claim interpretation, confirmed the patent’s validity, found infringement, and granted final remedies without referring the case back to the Court of First Instance.
​
Litigation insurance as security for costs
30 March 2026
In Syntorr v Arthrex, the UPC Court of Appeal clarified that while litigation insurance is not itself a form of security under Rule 158 RoP, it is a relevant factor when deciding whether security for costs should be ordered at all. By failing to consider the claimant’s insurance policy, the Munich Local Division wrongly exercised its discretion. The Court set aside the €2 million security order and confirmed that insurance can mitigate concerns about cost recoverability.
​
National law applies to claims for loss of profit if the events occurred before the UPC came into force
30 March 2026
In Fives v REEL, the Hamburg Local Division of the UPC dismissed a standalone damages action despite prior findings of infringement. Although the UPC was competent to assess damages, the court held that national law applied because the relevant events pre‑dated the UPC’s entry into force. Applying German law, the court found that the claimant had not proven causation or lost profit, highlighting the demanding evidentiary burden for price‑reduction damages claims and the importance of substantiating counterfactual tender outcomes.
​