10x Genomics v Curio Bioscience (CFI, 3 December 2024)

Dhenne Avocats · 10 October 2026

Our analysis

Summary

By order of 3 December 2024 (UPC_CFI_140/2024), the Düsseldorf Local Division ordered Curio Bioscience, the defendant in 10x Genomics’ infringement action based on EP 2 697 391, to provide security for costs of EUR 200,000 in favour of the claimant. The order holds that security may be imposed on a defendant, not only on a claimant, while requiring particular care for the defendant’s right to a fair trial. Leave to appeal was granted.

Question

Does Rule 158 RoP allow a claimant to obtain security for costs against the defendant, given that Art. 69(4) UPCA only refers to security requested by the defendant? On what conditions, and in what amount?

Decision

Rule 158 RoP refers to « a party » without distinction. Art. 69(4) UPCA sets a minimum (« in particular »), and its purpose, read with Art. 69(1) UPCA and Art. 14 of Directive 2004/48, does not exclude security being ordered against a defendant. The request is admissible without a prior determination of the value in dispute. The claimant’s voluntary decision to litigate nonetheless weighs in the balance. Here the claimant relied on Curio’s own statements in the preliminary injunction proceedings (a single product line company), which were not contested and were held to be true (Rule 171.2 RoP). With no information on actual costs, and the value in dispute still contested (EUR 3 million against EUR 60,000 at most), the amount was set at EUR 200,000, by deposit or by guarantee from a bank licensed in the European Union, within four weeks of service. The request for a decision by default was premature, and the request to defer security until the appeal decision was dismissed.

Key points for practice

• Security for costs is not reserved to defendants: a claimant may obtain it, but the court checks that it does not deprive the defendant of an effective opportunity to present its case.
• Practical point: statements on its financial position made in preliminary injunction proceedings may be used against the defendant in the main action.

Provisions applied

Agreement on a Unified Patent Court

Arts 41, 56, 69 and 73(2)(b)(ii)

Rules of Procedure

Rules 158, 171.2, 220.2, 224.1(b) and 355

Directive 2004/48

Art. 14

Case law cited

10x Genomics v Curio Bioscience, Düsseldorf Local Division, 30 April 2024, Audi v NST, Court of Appeal, 17 September 2024, Aarke v SodaStream, Court of Appeal, 29 November 2024, AIM v Supponor, Court of Appeal, 12 November 2024, Plant-e v Arkyne, The Hague Local Division, 13 February 2024, NanoString, Munich Central Division, 30 October 2023.

Prepared by Dhenne Avocats from the official decision, consulted on 10 October 2026. The database is updated every week, on Friday. Only the official text is authoritative.