10x Genomics v Curio Bioscience (CFI, 4 August 2025)

Dhenne Avocats · 10 October 2026

Our analysis

Summary

By order of 4 August 2025 (UPC_CFI_140/2024 and UPC_CFI_658/2025, App_33044/2025), Judge Thomas, presiding judge and judge rapporteur of the Düsseldorf Local Division, classified as confidential the information highlighted in the application for a costs decision filed on 16 July 2025 by 10x Genomics against Curio Bioscience (EP 2 697 391 B1). On Curio’s side, access is restricted to its representatives, their necessary assistants and two natural persons, including its CEO. The order clarifies how the confidentiality club is composed where executives are leaving or outside advisers are put forward.

Question

Which persons on the opposing side may access the unredacted version of a costs application, in particular an executive said to be leaving and an outside consultant?

Decision

The division applies Art. 58 UPCA and Rule 262A RoP, which implement Art. 9 of Directive (EU) 2016/943 (paragraphs 1 and 2), the confidential nature of the cost items is not disputed (paragraph 5). Access must be limited to what is necessary, with at least one natural person per party, and depends on each person’s role, the relevance of the information to that role and their trustworthiness (paragraphs 6 and 7). The chief operating officer is admitted without objection (paragraph 9). So is the CEO: 10x Genomics’ hearsay report that he is leaving is not enough to exclude him, and he would remain bound by the order after leaving (paragraph 10). A patent agent or consultant need not be an employee or an Art. 48 UPCA representative to be granted access, but Curio does not explain why the proposed consultant needs the cost information. The fact that he « has been coordinating discussions » is insufficient (paragraph 11).

Key points for practice

• Practical point: to bring an outside consultant into the confidentiality club, a party must show why the specific information at stake is necessary to that person, formal status matters little.

Provisions applied

Agreement on a Unified Patent Court

Arts 48 and 58

Rules of Procedure

Rule 262A

Other provisions

Directive (EU) 2016/943, Art. 9.

Case law cited

Daedalus Prime v Xiaomi, Court of Appeal, 12 February 2025 (UPC_CoA_621/2024), NST v Qualcomm, Court of Appeal, 3 July 2025 (UPC_CoA_221/2025), QIAGEN v bioMérieux, Düsseldorf Local Division, 15 July 2025 (UPC_CFI_181/2025), American Wave Machines v Surftown, Düsseldorf Local Division, 1 August 2025 (UPC_CFI_837/2024).

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.