Sophia Genetics and Bristows head off PI at local division Paris

No PI and Guardant must bear the costs. That was essentially the judgment of the Paris local division under presiding judge Camille Lignières (case ID: UPC_CFI_808/2025).

Carine Gille, Maximilian Haedicke and technically qualified judge Cornelis Schüller also sat on the panel.

The PI claim was initially based on four patents, but Guardant later withdrew claims concerning one of these patents.

Three remaining patents

Sophia Genetics, headquartered in Switzerland and the US, develops data-driven medicine software. The company distributes the “MSK-ACCESS powered with SOPHiA DDM” test. This liquid biopsy test offers an alternative to solid tumour testing. In 2024, Sophia Genetics entered into a collaboration with AstraZeneca for this technology.

California-based biotech company Guardant supplies its own liquid biopsy products, including Guardant 360. Both companies’ products involve biotechnology and tech applications.

In September 2025, Guardant filed for a PI at the UPC to prevent its competitor from distributing its product in UPC territories Austria, Belgium, Germany, France, Italy, the Netherlands, and Sweden, as well as non-UPC countries the Czech Republic, Switzerland, Spain, Poland, and Norway.

Guardant claims the competing product infringes its EP 3 443 066, EP 3 766 986 and EP 3 591 073. These patents cover liquid biopsy tests and their use in building genomic databases.

Likely invalid or not infringed

The UPC judges did not accept Guardant’s reasoning. They refused the PI because they considered EP 066 and EP 076 likely to be invalid due to added-matter issues. In such cases, UPC judges cannot issue a PI.

In two headnotes the Paris judges stated that “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”.

Another headnote states: “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.”

For the third patent, the PI failed because Guardant did not provide sufficient evidence of EP 986 infringement. “Additional in-depth investigations into how the SOPHIA platform operates or more technical documentation on the ‘accused software’ would have been necessary. It is not sufficient to rely mainly on a press release,” said the judges.

Guardant had based its claim primarily on a joint press release from Sophia Genetics and Precision for Medicine announcing a partnership. However, the judges found that “the allegations of infringement clearly suffer from a lack of evidence”.

Both parties can appeal

However, Sophia Genetics failed in its motion to dismiss the PIs on the grounds that Guardant had filed them too late. A further headnote states: “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.”

Sophia Genetics could appeal against this decision. But given its overall success, it will likely only do so if Guardant appeals the judgment. This is considered relatively certain, especially as Guardant is also pursuing litigation against its competitor in the UK.

Parallel UK case

Before approaching the Paris local division, Guardant filed an action for infringement of EP 533, EP 986, EP 066 and GB patent 2 510 725 at the UK High Court (case ID: HP-2025-000037). Guardant seeks a permanent injunction against the distribution of Sophia Genetics’ products in the UK. The parties recently exchanged written arguments in these proceedings.

Companies or strawmen opposed EP 533 and EP 073 at the EPO but failed to invalidate them. EP 533 was previously subject to infringement proceedings in Germany against Foundation Medicine. The companies settled their dispute in 2022.

Two British firms in Paris

Two British law firms faced each other in Paris. Carpmaels & Ransford has acted as Guardant’s long-term adviser for EPO filings. London-based partner Andrew Hutchinson, who recently joined from Simmons & Simmons, is handling the UK case with David Wilson.

Cameron Marshall and Agathe Michel-de Cazotte are handling the UPC case.

The mixed IP firm has recently filed several new life sciences cases at the UPC. Carpmaels is also acting for Merz in a PI case pending at the Paris local division, and a Carpmaels team is advising Align Technology in its PI case at the Düsseldorf local division.

Bristows sucessful for Sophia Genetics

It was already public knowledge that Sophia Genetics had retained Bristows for the UK proceedings. JUVE Patent has now learned that the company has also retained the UK law firm for the UPC case.

The team includes partners Rob Burrows and Liz Cohen, alongside Dublin-based of counsel and UPC director Naoise Gaffney. A dual-qualified litigator, Gaffney joined Bristows’ Dublin office in early 2025 and brought the contact to Sophia Genetics.