UPC_CoA_19/2026

Decisions and documents (2)

• 2026-07-02procedural

  Applicant:

  Guardant Health, Inc.

  Respondents:

  Sophia Genetics GmbH; Sophia Genetics SA; Sophia Genetics SAS; Sophia Genetics SRL

  1. A patent holder is not obliged to assert all patents in one application for provisional measures. If a patent holder has the necessary information for filing an application for provisional measures regarding some, but not all patents, delaying the filing of the Application for provisional measures until it has the necessary information regarding all allegedly infringed patents may be regarded as an unreasonable delay. 2. If a patent holder is aware, on the basis of a document, that one or more of its patents has been infringed, it must not turn a blind eye to the fact that the document also indicates the infringement of one or more of its other patents. 3. As a general rule, the patent holder is not obliged to monitor the market. However, if the patent holder becomes aware of specific circumstances that suggest patent infringement, the patent holder is expected to investigate the matter with due diligence so that the patent holder can take action against all infringers as quickly as possible. 4. A long-standing infringement may indicate that the patent holder has turned a blind eye to the infringement. 5. If the applicant is a legal entity, the decisive factor for assessment of urgency is when its authorised representative body or an individual, who by virtue of its position within the legal entity is capable of pursuing the infringement or reporting it, internally becomes aware of it. For example, this person could be an employee of the legal department, a senior member of the sales department or a mystery shopper engaged specifically to investigate intellectual property rights infringements. 6. As a general rule, the patent holder may wait a reasonable time for a response to a warning letter before drafting and lodging an application for provisional measures. 7. As a general rule, the unsuccessful party must bear the reasonable and proportionate legal costs and other expenses incurred by the successful party (Art. 69(1) UPCA). Exceptions apply where equity requires a different allocation of costs, in particular where a party succeeds only in part or in exceptional circumstances (Art. 69(2) UPCA) and where the party has caused unnecessary costs to the Court or another party (Art. 69(3) UPCA). As a rule, the withdrawal of an action or application means that the defendant must be considered the successful party. Equity does not provide otherwise in cases where the claimant applies to withdraw the application for provisional measures or the action after the defendant, for the first time in the proceedings and not in response of the UPC Court of Appeal warning letter, raises an argument against infringement. In principle, a person who has received an unjustified warning is under no obligation to provide clarification why it will not comply with the request.

  Judge: Rian Kalden • Panel: Patricia Rombach, Ingeborg Simonsson, Arwed Burrichter, Andreas Gustafsson, Rian Kalden🔒 Unlock Official PDF
• 2026-02-18procedural

  Applicant:

  Guardant Health, Inc.

  Respondents:

  Sophia Genetics GmbH; Sophia Genetics SA; Sophia Genetics SAS; Sophia Genetics SRL

  dismissed

  Application Rop 223. Document: Order supsensive effect 19-2026.pdf. Case page: https://www.unifiedpatentcourt.org/en/node/162171

  Judge: Rian Kalden • Panel: Patricia Rombach, Ingeborg Simonsson, Rian Kalden🔒 Unlock Official PDF