2026-01-23 - CD Paris - Guardant v. Sophia Genetics - UPC_CFI_808/2025

1. Unreasonable delay under R. 211.4 RoP: In the present case, a three-month period constitutes a reasonable delay to prepare the application for provisional measures by gathering the necessary evidence, given that the case involves several patents and a complex and sophisticated technology. 2. Added matter (divisional patent): It is decisive whether all the elements are directly and unambiguously derivable from the patent as originally filed (in the present case: the PCT application) or whether the latter is used as some kind of reservoir from which scattered fragments can be combined, in which case there is a whole series of different ‘inventions’ included in the PCT application. 3. Added matter: From the selections that have been made without any clear indication in the earlier application, the Court concludes that the invention as now worded in the granted claim cannot directly and unambiguously be derived from the patent as filed. 4. Demonstration of an infringement with a sufficient degree of certainty (R. 211.2 RoP): The burden of proof for the alleged infringement lies with the party invoking it. Applicant cannot rely solely on the disputed information from a press release to demonstrate how Defendants' software processes data. Additional in-depth investigations into how Defendants’ platform operates or more technical documentation on the 'accused software' would have been necessary.

The Paris Local Division refused provisional measures on three liquid-biopsy patents. It first rejected the delay objection: under R. 211.4 RoP the period runs from the moment the applicant, exercising due diligence, holds the facts and evidence R. 206.2(d) RoP requires, and three months was reasonable where several patents and a complex technology had to be analysed. On the merits it held EP'073 and EP'066 more likely than not invalid for added matter, applying the Court of Appeal's rule that an earlier application may not be treated as a reservoir from which features drawn from separate lists of alternatives are combined without a pointer. On EP'073 it also denied infringement on claim construction: a probabilistic method of arriving at a consensus sequence is described but not claimed, so it lies outside the scope of protection. On EP'986 it held the applicant had not discharged its burden under R. 211.2 RoP, because a joint press release does not show how the accused software processes data — a conclusion the Court applied alike to direct infringement under Art. 25 UPCA and indirect infringement under Art. 26 UPCA.