10x Genomics v Curio Bioscience (CFI, 16 June 2025)

Dhenne Avocats · 10 October 2026

Our analysis

Summary

In its decision on the merits of 16 June 2025, the Düsseldorf Local Division holds that Curio Bioscience directly infringes product claim 14 of 10x Genomics’ EP 2 697 391 B1 with its “Curio Seeker Spatial Mapping KIT” in Germany, France and Sweden, but dismisses the claim based on indirect infringement of method claim 1. The decision confirms on the merits the assessment made at the provisional measures stage and shows how strictly the division reads each feature of a method claim: the tagged DNA must be released “from the surface of the array”, which requires the array still to exist at that step.

Facts and procedure

The patent, filed on 13 April 2012 claiming priority from a British application of 13 April 2011, concerns the localised detection of nucleic acid in a tissue sample by means of an array of positionally indexed capture probes. No opposition was filed. Curio Bioscience offers its kit in Germany, France and Sweden (paragraphs 6 to 9 and 110). By order of 30 April 2024, the same division had found, at the provisional stage, infringement of claim 14 but not of claim 1, 10x Genomics’ appeal against that order was withdrawn (paragraphs 10 and 11). The defendant did not file a counterclaim for revocation and validity was not challenged on the merits (paragraph 65). It argued that the array is destroyed before the release step and, in the alternative, relied on the double territoriality requirement of Art. 26 UPCA (paragraphs 31 to 38).

The applicable law

The Court’s jurisdiction rests on Arts. 31 and 32(1) UPCA and Regulation 1215/2012 (paragraph 45). Claims are construed under Art. 69 EPC and its Protocol: the description and drawings serve as aids, but the claim sets the outer limit of protection (paragraphs 54 and 70). The remedies fall under Arts. 63, 64, 67, 68 and 80 UPCA, and security under Art. 82(2) UPCA.

Question

Does the kit meet the feature of claim 1 requiring release of the tagged DNA from the surface of the array, and does it literally meet the features of claim 14, in particular a capture domain comprising a poly-T oligonucleotide of at least 10 deoxythymidine residues?

Decision

On claim 1, the division holds that release must take place from the surface of the array. The array must therefore still exist and be identifiable at that point, although it need not be intact (paragraphs 67, 72 and 78). Since the claimant failed to show that this feature is met, indirect infringement is rejected (paragraphs 111 to 116) and the Art. 26 point need not be decided. On claim 14, literal infringement is found: the positional domains result from the barcodes, duplicate barcodes do not stand in the way and the length of the poly-T sequence was not successfully disputed (paragraphs 97 to 109). Offering and placing on the market give rise to a presumption of use or possession (paragraph 110). The division orders an injunction for Germany, France and Sweden, recall, destruction, information and liability in principle for damages, with penalty payments of up to EUR 100,000 per day (paragraphs 117 to 127). Publication is refused, since the claimant is sufficiently protected by the other measures (paragraphs 123 to 125), as is the security for enforcement sought by the defendant, which alleged no lack of financial capacity (paragraphs 131 to 135). Costs are split 30% to the claimant and 70% to the defendant, both on the merits and in the provisional proceedings (paragraphs 129 and 130), the value in dispute is set at EUR 3,000,000 (paragraphs 136 to 140).

Key points for practice

• A method claim placing a step “from the surface” of a support requires that support to survive until that step. A process that destroys it beforehand falls outside the claim (paragraphs 72 and 78).
• A product claim may succeed where the method claim fails, and the outcome claim by claim then shapes the allocation of costs (paragraph 129).
• Publication of the decision has a punitive element and is granted only where the other measures do not adequately protect the patentee (paragraph 124).
• Practical point: a defendant seeking security before enforcement must put forward specific facts, in particular the claimant’s inability to compensate any loss (paragraphs 133 to 135).

Provisions applied

Agreement on a Unified Patent Court

Arts. 25, 26, 31, 32, 63, 64, 67, 68, 69, 80 and 82

Rules of Procedure

Rules 9.2, 19.7, 118, 150, 158, 220.1(a), 354 and 355

European Patent Convention

Art. 54, Art. 64, Art. 69 and the Protocol on its interpretation

Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012

Arts. 7(2) and 71b

Case law cited

NanoString v 10x Genomics, Court of Appeal, 26 February 2024, VusionGroup v Hanshow, Court of Appeal, 13 May 2024, SharkNinja v Dyson, Court of Appeal, 3 December 2024, Insulet v EOFlow, Court of Appeal, 30 April 2025, 10x Genomics v Curio Bioscience, Düsseldorf Local Division, 30 April 2024, and several decisions of the Düsseldorf, Munich and Mannheim Local Divisions.

Related decisions

• 10x Genomics v Curio Bioscience, 30 April 2024, provisional measures order in the same dispute.

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.