Bruker Spatial Biology (formerly Nanostring) & Ors v 10x Genomics & Anor (UPC_CoA_681/2025)
Decision date:
01 October 2025
Osborne Clarke summary
- This was an appeal by Bruker (formerly Nanostring) against an order of the Munich LD relating to the reimbursement of court fees. The fees were for Bruker's application for compensation following the revocation of provisional measures against it.
- In February 2025, Bruker filed an application under Article 60(9) UPCA and Rule 213.2 RoP seeking compensation for damage caused by the provisional measures, requesting €28,124,000 as an interim award and an order for 10x Genomics to lay open its books. Bruker paid a court fee of €253,000 for its application but argued it should be fully reimbursed. It argued that its fee was covered by the fee paid by 10x Genomics when it sought provisional measures and that no separate fee was provided for in the RoP for a Rule 213.2 application.
- The parties settled in May 2025 and withdrew their claims. The Munich LD permitted the withdrawal of 10x Genomics' infringement action, Bruker's revocation counterclaim and the application for compensation. It ordered reimbursement of 60% of Bruker's court fees for the latter (€151,800). Bruker appealed, seeking 100%.
- 10x Genomics did not take up the opportunity to file a statement of response. Therefore the court decided the appeal on the basis of Bruker's written appeal statement alone.
- The Court of Appeal noted that Munich LD's decision was appealable under Rule 220.1(a) RoP as it terminated the action. However, it rejected the appeal in its entirety. It held that Bruker's argument that there was no separate procedure for determination of compensation in the RoP, and that no fee is payable, was incorrect.
- It considered that a request to lay open books under Rule 213.2 RoP forms part of the procedure for determination of damages and compensation governed by Part 1, Chapter 4 RoP. Rule 125 RoP expressly provides that determination of compensation pursuant to Rule 213.2 RoP is included in the determination of damages, which may be the subject of separate proceedings requiring payment of both fixed and value-based fees under Rule 132 RoP.
- The Court of Appeal also rejected Bruker's argument that the costs of its application for compensation were covered by the provisional measures proceedings. It held that applications for compensation under Rule 213.2 RoP are decided in separate proceedings, which require a separate fee. The fact that Bruker combined its request for determination of compensation with a request to establish liability did not entitle it to pay a reduced or no fee.
- The Court of Appeal rejected Bruker's arguments that requiring court fees for its application for compensation and for its appeal violated the principle of legal certainty. It held that the RoP and Table of Fees provide a sufficiently clear legal basis for the fees. The Table of Fees did not provide a fee for Bruker's specific appeal, but the most comparable fee was that for an appeal concerning an application to determine damages, which is what Bruker had in fact paid.
- As requested by Bruker, the Court of Appeal did not make a costs order for the appeal.
Issue
Curious about how UPC decisions might impact your business? Have questions about the UPC?
Reach out to our patents team for expert guidance and support.