UPC_CFI_808/2025 – Guardant Health v Sophia Genetics

Expert Commentary

PI proceedings Facts Guardant lodged an application for a preliminary injunction (“PI”) on 29 August 2025. The application was served on all defendants on 15 September 2025. On 1 October 2025, no representative for defendants had been nominated. The JR For efficiency reasons, the Judge-Rapporteur (“JR”) sets a timeline for submissions and the oral hearing as follows: · Defendant’s Defence on 27 October 2025 (max. 100 pages); · Applicant’s Reply on 10 November 2025 (max. 20 pages); · Defendant’s Rejoinder on 24 November 2025 (max. 20 pages); · Oral argument on 12 December 2025. Comment 1. The JR does the right thing, as the Rules do not set a time limit to appear in PI proceedings. This means that the Applicant can only ask for a decision by default if a party fails to take a step within the time limit foreseen in the Rules or set by the Court. 2. The latter has now been done by the Court. 3. Decisions by default are governed by R. 355 RoP. However, as mentioned above this Rule refers to “Decisions”, while PI proceedings end with an order and not a decision. However, I assume that the Court of Appeal will also apply this Rule in case of a party not appointing a representative and therefore simply not showing up in PI proceedings. 4. To avoid delays because defendants not showing up, I wonder if the applicant in PI proceedings in his application should alternatively ask for an ex parte order in case a representative of a defendant is not appointed within two weeks. 5. The above also shows that, after the revision of the Case Management System, a revision of the Rules may be a good thing to undertake, starting with collecting ideas for such revision from the judges and the representatives by a (new) Rules Committee (or the Advisory Committee). 6. The Paris Local Division has learned from its experience with a more than 400-pages defence in PI proceedings and now sets a page limit. 7. I advise the JR to follow the example of the Local Division The Hague the next time, and set a word limit instead of a page limit, which avoids receiving 100 pages in a very small font and at the same time allows the defendant to put drawings in the text without losing space for his written submission. 8. Finally, I noted that the Application is based on 4 European patents. This seems to me (too) many to orderly deal with in PI proceedings.

Full Decision Text

PARIS LOCAL DIVISION UPC_CFI_808/2025 PROCEDURAL ORDER of the Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court issued on 1 October 2025 concerning setting the date of the oral hearing APPLICANT IN PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION PROCEEDINGS: Guardant Health, Inc. 3100 Hanover Street, 94304, Palo Alto, CA, US represented by Agathe MICHEL-DE CAZOTTE DEFENDANTS IN PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION PROCEEDINGS: Sophia Genetics SA La Pièce 12, CH-1180, Rolle, CH Sophia Genetics SAS Technopole Izarbel, 158 allée Fauste d’Elhuyar 64210, Bidart, FR Sophia Genetics SRL Via Michelangelo Buonarroti 39, 20145, Milan, IT Sophia Genetics GmbH Engelbergerstr. 19, 79106, Freiburg, DE 1 PATENTS AT ISSUE: EP 3766986 EP 3470533 EP 3443066 EP 3591073 PANEL: Camille Lignières, Presiding judge and Judge Rapporteur Carine Gillet, Legally qualified judge Maximilian Haedicke, Legally qualified judge Cornelis Schüller, Technically qualified judge DECIDING JUDGE: This order is issued by Judge Camille Lignières, acting as judge-rapporteur. LANGUAGE OF THE PROCEEDINGS: English. SUBJECT: R. 209.1 AND R. 210.1 RoP ORDER On 29 August 2025, Guardant Health (“the Applicant”) lodged before the present Division an application for provisional measures against Sophia Genetics entities (“Defendants 1 to 4”) pursuant to Article 62 UPCA and Rule 206 RoP based on four European Patents (containing 84 pages, including a technical glossary and the list of Exhibits). This application was served on all the Defendants on 15 September 2025, in accordance with Rule 271.4 a) and 271.6 b) RoP (Defendants 2 to 4) and with Rule 274.1(a) (ii) RoP (Defendant 1). Fifteen days after the application was effectively served, the Defendants had still not provided the Court with the names of their representatives. In the light of the efficiency of the proceedings and in the context of an application of provisional measures, pursuant to R. 210.1 RoP, “where the Court decides to summon the parties to an oral hearing, the date for the oral hearing shall be set as soon as possible after the date of receipt of the Application for Provisional measures”. In the case at hand, the Court summons the parties for an Oral Hearing scheduled for 12/12/2025, 9:30 am (Paris time) in person, at the Paris Court of Appeal, salle Vassogne, 4 boulevard du Palais, Paris 1er. 2 If the Defendants are represented, they must file their objection by 27 October 2025. The timeline pursuant to Rule 209.1 will then be set as follows: Timeline • Defendants' Objection by 27 October 2025 (max. 100 pages) • Applicant’s last Reply by 10 November 2025 (a brief note, max 20 pages) • Defendants’ Rejoinder by 24 November 2025 (a brief note, max 20 pages) Issued in Paris on 1 October 2025. C.Lignières, Judge-rapporteur. Date : 2025.10.01 18:27:46 +02'00' ORDER DETAILS: UPC number: UPC_CFI_808/2025 Date of issue: 1 October 2025 Application Type: Application for provisional measures. 3

Key Holdings

• Timeline set for PI proceedings where defendant failed to appoint representative.
• Page limits imposed (100 pages for Defence, 20 for Reply/Rejoinder).
• Oral hearing scheduled.

Tags

• Case Management
• Default Judgment
• Legal Representation
• Page Limits
• Preliminary Injunction

Related Cases

• UPC_CFI_583/2025 – Bostik v Henkel
• UPC_CFI_813/2024_Mar24_Saisie – Tiru v Maquin
• UPC_CFI_163/2024_May23_Infringement – Hurom v NUC
• UPC_CFI_813/2024 – Tiru v Maquin
• UPC_CFI_440/2023 – Seoul Viosys v Laser Components