Opens in a new tab

10x Genomics v Curio Bioscience (CFI, 11 March 2024)

Date11 March 2024
CourtCFI
DivisionDüsseldorf (DE) Local Division
Type of actionApplication for provisional measures
Case number(s)UPC_CFI_463/2023
Registry referenceApp_8500/2024 · ORD_8550/2024 · UPC_CFI_463/2023
Parties10x Genomics, Inc. v. Curio Bioscience Inc.

Official decision (PDF) · UPC registry entry

Case timeline

Dhenne Avocats represents claimants and defendants in European patent disputes before the Unified Patent Court, including the Paris divisions.

Contact the firm

Dhenne Avocats · 10 October 2026

Our analysis

Summary

By order of 11 March 2024 (UPC_CFI_463/2023), the judge-rapporteur of the Düsseldorf Local Division, in 10x Genomics’ provisional measures proceedings against Curio Bioscience based on EP 2 697 391, ruled on Curio’s confidentiality application concerning commercial information in its objection. Access was reserved to four lawyers, two paralegals and a single employee of 10x Genomics, excluding patent attorneys. The judge refused, however, to exclude an employee merely because he works in the technical field of the patent, and rejected the undertaking not to take part in licence negotiations demanded by Curio.

Question

How should the circle of persons allowed to see confidential commercial information in summary proceedings be determined, and can an employee be excluded because he works in the field of the patent?

Decision

The application rests on Art. 58 UPCA, Rule 262A RoP and Art. 9 of Directive 2016/943 (I). As confidentiality was not disputed, access was restricted under Rule 262A.6. Each party nominates the persons concerned. In summary proceedings, four lawyers, two patent attorneys and three client representatives are in principle acceptable, plus two paralegals (II.1). A nominated person cannot be excluded merely because he works in the technical field of the patent, since that proximity is often what allows him to inform his representatives, and confidentiality obligations remain enforceable by penalties (II.2). The circle must nonetheless be tailored to the case: as the information was purely commercial, patent attorneys did not need it, and the number of employees was reduced to the minimum of one, 10x Genomics had not answered the objections raised against the two additional employees it proposed (II.3).

Key points for practice

Provisions applied

Agreement on a Unified Patent Court
Art. 58
Rules of Procedure
Rule 262A
Directive 2016/943
Art. 9(1) and (2)(a)
Case law cited
Avago v Tesla, Hamburg Local Division, 3 November 2023, 10x Genomics v Curio Bioscience, Düsseldorf Local Division, 14 February 2024, order of the same division of 23 February 2024 in the same case, Düsseldorf Local Division, 26 February 2024, UPC_CFI_355/2023.

Related decisions

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.


Decisions in the same proceedings

Going further

Lexicon: Application for a preliminary injunction, Order to preserve evidence (UPC).

Publications by Matthieu Dhenne: The Launch Letter: How Generics and Biosimilars Should Write to Avoid UPC Urgency (Kluwer Patent Blog).

Source and translations

Official source
Unified Patent Court registry link recorded in the record
Original language
not recorded
Translation available
no translation recorded the firm’s French record is a summary, not a translation
Date checked
not recorded
Only the official text is authoritative. A machine translation is never presented as official, republishing a third-party document requires a verified basis in rights, and a link to the source is preferred.

Follow this case

Proceedings, related decisions, appeals, parties and patents as recorded in the registry and in the Dhenne Avocats corpus. Each link states its source.

Proceedings

  • UPC_CFI_463/2023 official number

Follow this case

Parties

Exact name as it appears in the record, group affiliation only where sourced and dated.

Decisions in the same proceedings and documented appeals

  1. 29 January 2024 10x Genomics v Curio Bioscience (CFI, 29 January 2024) Application for provisional measures · UPC_CFI_463/2023

    Le juge rapporteur fait demander, avec l'accord des parties, l'affectation d'un juge techniquement qualifié à la formation saisie de la demande de mesures provisoires.

  2. 14 February 2024 10x Genomics v Curio Bioscience (CFI, 14 February 2024) Application for provisional measures · UPC_CFI_463/2023

    La demande de confidentialité anticipée est réservée jusqu'au dépôt de la réponse, tout document déposé avec une demande au titre de la règle 262A bénéficiant d'une protection provisoire.

  3. 23 February 2024 10x Genomics v Curio Bioscience (CFI, UPC_CFI_463/2023, ACT_590953/2023, 23 February 2024) Application for provisional measures · UPC_CFI_463/2023

    L'accès aux informations confidentielles est provisoirement limité aux représentants désignés, à deux assistants et à un salarié de la partie adverse. L'exclusion de tout salarié et l'interdiction de participer à des négociations de licence sont refusées.

  4. 23 February 2024 Curio Bioscience v 10x Genomics (CFI, 23 February 2024) Application for provisional measures · UPC_CFI_463/2023
  5. 23 February 2024 10x Genomics v Curio Bioscience (CFI, UPC_CFI_463/2023, ORD_9718/2024, 23 February 2024) Application for provisional measures · UPC_CFI_463/2023

    Les demandes de report et de prorogation du délai de réplique sont rejetées : le délai court du prononcé de l'ordonnance qui le fixe, sans attendre l'issue de la procédure de confidentialité.

  6. 23 February 2024 10x Genomics v Curio Bioscience (CFI, UPC_CFI_463/2023, ORD_9718/2024, 23 February 2024, doc. 2) Application for provisional measures · UPC_CFI_463/2023

    Le délai de réplique court à compter de l'ordonnance qui l'a fixé et n'est ni reporté à la fin de la procédure de confidentialité ni prorogé.

  7. 26 February 2024 Curio Bioscience v 10x Genomics (CFI, UPC_CFI_463/2023, ORD_5853/2024, 26 February 2024) Application for provisional measures · UPC_CFI_463/2023

    La demande de passage à l'anglais, langue de délivrance, est rejetée faute d'éléments établissant un préjudice sensible pour le défendeur.

  8. 26 February 2024 Curio Bioscience v 10x Genomics (CFI, UPC_CFI_463/2023, ORD_5853/2024, 26 February 2024, doc. 2) Application for provisional measures · UPC_CFI_463/2023
  9. 1 March 2024 10x Genomics v Curio Bioscience (CFI, 1 March 2024) Application for provisional measures · UPC_CFI_463/2023

    L'interprétation simultanée de l'audience n'est pas ordonnée, la demanderesse ayant choisi l'allemand et refusé le passage à l'anglais. Les parties peuvent recourir à des interprètes à leurs frais.

  10. 11 March 2024 10x Genomics v Curio Bioscience (CFI, 11 March 2024) Application for provisional measures · UPC_CFI_463/2023
  11. 22 March 2024 10x Genomics v Curio Bioscience (CFI, 22 March 2024) Procedural Order · UPC_CFI_463/2023

    Le conseil en brevets de la défenderesse peut plaider en anglais avec interprétation simultanée vers l'allemand à ses frais. La représentante qui maîtrise l'allemand doit plaider dans la langue de procédure.

What the record states

Nature of the act
Application for provisional measures
Outcome (Dhenne Avocats summary)
Les informations commerciales de Curio sont protégées, l'accès étant limité à quatre avocats, deux assistantes et un salarié de 10x Genomics. L'activité technique d'un salarié ne justifie pas à elle seule son exclusion.
Appeal
No appeal documented in the corpus, this does not mean that no appeal was lodged.
Instance
First-instance decision, whether it has become final is not recorded.

Patents mentioned

Related decisions cited in the analyses

Scope: Dhenne Avocats corpus. Registry-based links are marked “official number”; links derived from the analyses are marked as such. An erroneous link can be withdrawn without deleting any record.

Patents and standards

PublicationRole in the disputeFamilyStandard and declarationPoolSources
EP 2 697 391
Method and product for localised or spatial detection of nucleic acid in a tissue sample
recorded proprietor: Spatial Transcriptomics AB		Mentioned in the analysis (role not qualified)
Also mentioned in 28 other decision(s): 10x Genomics v Curio Bioscience (CFI, ORD_598272/2023, 30 April 2024) · 10x Genomics v Curio Bioscience (CFI, UPC_CFI_658/2025, 2 February 202 · 10x Genomics v Curio Bioscience (CFI, UPC_CFI_657/2025, 2 February 202 · 10x Genomics v Curio Bioscience (CFI, 5 August 2025) · 10x Genomics v Curio Bioscience (CFI, 4 August 2025) · 10x Genomics v Curio Bioscience (CFI, 16 June 2025) · 10x Genomics v Curio Bioscience (CFI, 4 June 2025) · 10x Genomics v Curio Bioscience (CFI, 2 May 2025)		not recordednot recordednot recordedEspacenet · European Patent Register
existence and title of the publication checked on 30 October 2026 (Google Patents, Espacenet and Register links are not checked automatically)
mentioned in: Dhenne Avocats analysis
The statuses “asserted in litigation”, “declared essential”, “listed by a pool” and “essentiality examined by a court” are distinct and may coexist. Validity, infringement and technical essentiality are different questions. Scope: patents cited in the decisions of the Dhenne Avocats corpus, with no essentiality score or prediction.

Receive an alert

Weekly summary of new records and substantive updates matching what you follow. Address confirmed by email, unsubscribe at any time, one email per week even where several of your follows match.

Follow

Weekly summary, on Fridays.