Tort Experts’ Post

A defendant in infringement proceedings can be ordered to provide security for legal costs and other expenses of the plaintiff. That was held by the UPC Düsseldorf Division in its order of 3 December 2024 in 10X Genomics v Curio Bioscience in which the defendant was ordered to provide security for an amount of € 200.000: https://lnkd.in/e2Gvycwk. An application to the UPC Court of Appeal for suspensive effect was rejected by the standing judge in an order of 17 December 2024 because there was no extreme urgency: https://lnkd.in/eVbqNU8A   The Düsseldorf panel based its reasoning on the language or R. 158 of the Rules of Procedures which provides that “a party” may be ordered to provide security. However, Article 69 UPCA only provides that the applicant may be ordered to provide adequate security but does not mention the defendant. The Local Division saw no conflict because Article 69 does not exclude imposing a security on a defendant. Suspensive effect of the appeal was rejected because the standing judge saw no extreme urgency and held that the finding of the Local Division was not manifestly wrong and the issue as to what the correct interpretation of these provision is something to be decided in the appeal itself. For UPC case law on security for costs (R. 158 RoP): https://lnkd.in/e26c_jSm #upc, #upcnugget

Another UPC first: After 10x Genomics lost in the appeal proceedings on provisional measures in the frequently cited hallmark decision “NanoString/10x Genomics” of the UPC Court of Appeal, they lodged an application for rehearing according to Art. 81(1) UPCA in combination with Rules 245, 247(c) and (e) RoP. The request was dismissed as inadmissible. The second panel of the Court of Appeal clarified in the headnotes of the order that the assessment of the arguments and evidence presented by the parties is carried out by the court dealing with the case and is not subject to review in the context of an application for a rehearing. Additionally, it follows from Art. 32(1)(c) UPCA that applications for provisional measures under Art. 62 UPCA are standalone actions and these proceedings end with the decision in the appeal proceedings, therefore providing a legal basis for the basic decision on costs outlined in Rule 242.1 RoP. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first order by the UPC on an application for a rehearing.  The judgment (in German) can be downloaded here: https://lnkd.in/dCzGs65M. Congrats to our client and our “NanoString” litigation team, including Oliver Jan Jüngst, Moritz Schroeder and Dr. Alexander Bothe. #nanostring #patentlitigation #UPC #UnifiedPatentCourt

Next meeting is tomorrow! 📣 Our team at RZA Legal will be engaged in the rulemaking process to serve as a resource for clients wishing to become a licensed entity in the commercial natural medicine supply chain. Reach out if you have any questions! The Division will post and distribute the agenda for each meeting, including more specific information about what topics will be covered at each work group meeting, at least five days prior to the meeting. Check out their website for more information. #comj #naturalmedicine

Biosimilars in the US: A confusing mess? There are 2 types: "regular" biosimilars and "interchangeable" ones. Experts are trying to simplify this system, but it's a tricky mix of science and law. ⚖️ Read on to learn more about biosimilars and why the US system might need a revamp! https://lnkd.in/ePwqTWAX

VOSSIUS & BRINKHOF UPC LITIGATORS won a preliminary injunction for Amycel at the Unified Patent Court’s Local Division in The Hague. Amycel alleged that a Polish defendant infringed Amycel’s patent for a brown mushroom strain with defendant’s mushroom strain. The Hague Local Division found that defendant’s mushroom strain is genetically identical to Amycel’s strain. Defendant therefore infringed Amycel’s patent by marketing its mushroom strain within the UPC territory. The Hague Local Division granted a preliminary injunction covering the Netherlands, Germany, France and Italy. Read more about the decision here. ➡ #upc #patentlaw #iplaw

#Synthesis: #USPTO’s guidance provides insights into #GenAI in #DrugDiscovery; #RegenxBio departs from previous case law. #PatentEligibility #NucleicAcid #Inventorship #LifeSciences #IntellectualProperty

In this edition of our Pharma & Life Sciences Law Brief we take a look at a round up our PING 2024 event, useful lessons learned from the 23andMe data breach, and why you should (sometimes) bother reading the legal small print 🍷 https://lnkd.in/eqaiY4Tq #PharmaLaw #PING2024 #LawBrief

#Synthesis: #USPTO’s guidance provides insights into #GenAI in #DrugDiscovery; #RegenxBio departs from previous case law. #PatentEligibility #NucleicAcid #Inventorship #LifeSciences #IntellectualProperty

#Synthesis: #USPTO’s guidance provides insights into #GenAI in #DrugDiscovery; #RegenxBio departs from previous case law. #PatentEligibility #NucleicAcid #Inventorship #LifeSciences #IntellectualProperty

An interview with ERS Genomics’ Vice-President of Intellectual Property and Commercial Development, Michael Arciero. Michael sits down with The Patent Lawyer to discuss the importance of developing a robust intellectual property portfolio in rapidly evolving technologies like CRISPR/Cas9, the considerations for maintaining a global patent portfolio, and the importance of having the correct IP in place to protect product development timelines and ensure the ability to commercialize. Read the full article here on page 8 👉 https://lnkd.in/gcc8uP_F #patent #lawyer #interview #ERSgenomics #vicepresident #IPportfolio #CRISPR #protection #commercialize #IPlaw