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

Litigants in person and IP risk: Lessons from Banham v Rogers
26 March 2026
The High Court’s judgment in Banham v Rogers provides a stark warning for SMEs defending intellectual property claims without professional advice. Acting as a litigant in person, the defendant misunderstood key technical issues, failed to comply with procedural requirements, and mismanaged correspondence and evidence. These cumulative errors left the court with no realistic defence to consider, leading to summary judgment and public reputational damage. The case underlines the importance of obtaining specialist IP advice at an early stage to avoid avoidable and compounding litigation risks.
​
Clarification of international jurisdiction
26 March 2026
The UPC Court of Appeal has clarified that where jurisdiction is based on Article 7(2) of the Brussels Regulation (place of harm), it is limited to damage occurring within UPC territory. In Keeex v Adobe, the Court set aside the Paris Local Division’s decision to hear infringement claims relating to non‑UPCA states, confirming that broader territorial reach requires satisfaction of the strict conditions under Article 71b(3).
​
Language protections don’t bite if you have a website
25 March 2026
In KeyMed v PR Medical, the Milan Local Division of the Unified Patent Court rejected a preliminary objection seeking to change the language of proceedings from English to Italian under Rule 14.2(b) RoP. Although the defendant was an Italian company and the action was brought before the Italian local division, the court held that the language protection did not apply because the alleged infringement was not confined to Italy.
​