LD Munich, July 17, 2026, Order, UPC_CFI_2307/2026

BARDEHLE PAGENBERG combines the expertise of attorneys-at-law and patent attorneys. As one of the largest IP firms in Europe, BARDEHLE PAGENBERG advises in all fields of Intellectual Property, including all procedures before the patent and trademark offices as well as litigation before the courts through all instances.

Explore Firm Details

The Munich Local Division of the Unified Patent Court addressed critical procedural questions in provisional measures proceedings, examining how prior knowledge of infringement allegations from parallel litigation in other jurisdictions affects the timeline for preparing objections. The court's decision establishes important precedents for balancing swift relief against the fundamental rights of respondents in cross-border patent disputes.

Germany Intellectual Property

Article Insights

Henri Kirner’s articles from Bardehle Pagenberg are most popular:

within Intellectual Property topic(s)
in United Kingdom

Bardehle Pagenberg are most popular:

within Privacy topic(s)

1. Key takeaways

UPC proceedings (here provisional measures proceedings under R. 206 RoP) require a flexible and balanced case management approach, ensuring swift relief while respecting the rights of all parties.

The Court must balance the applicant’s right to a fast remedy against the respondent’s right to be heard and the panel’s need for adequate preparation time.

A respondent’s prior awareness of the allegation of infringement due to ongoing proceedings based on equivalent patent in other jurisdiction may be considered when assessing the time needed to prepare an objection.

The Court found that the respondent group was already aware of the four patents and the allegation of infringement due to ongoing parallel Australian proceedings based on four Autralian patents, which are the Atralian equivalents of the patents asserted in the present proceedings. This reduced the need for extensive preparation time for the UPC proceedings.

A fixed deadline for an objection, set to account for potential service delays, will not be extended due to temporary technical issues like a party’s lack of access to the CMS.

The Court rejected the respondent’s argument that time without CMS access should be added to the deadline, clarifying the date was fixed intentionally to manage the schedule.

A party’s consent to a time extension under R. 9.3(a) RoP is legally ineffective if it is subject to a condition that the Court determines cannot be met.

The applicant consented to an extension only if the hearing date was unchanged. Since the Court found this impossible, it concluded no valid consent was given.

Local Division Munich

2. UPC number

UPC_CFI_2307/2026

3. Type of proceedings

Proceedings for provisional measures

4. Parties

Applicant: OXFORD NANOPORE TECHNOLOGIES PLC
Respondents: MGI TECH GmbH, MGI TECH CO., LIMITED, BGI HANGZHOU CYCLONESEQ TECHNOLOGY CO., LTD, SHENZHEN BGI GENOMICS CO., LTD

5. Patent(s)

EP 2 422 198 B1, EP 2 715 343 B1, EO 2 964 779 B1, EP 3 097 210 B2

UPC, Liechtenstein, Switzerland, Ireland, UK

6. Body of legislation / Rules

R. 9.3(a) RoP, R. 209.1 RoP.

To view the full article please click here.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

[View Source]