10x Genomics v Curio Bioscience (CFI, 5 August 2025)

Dhenne Avocats · 10 October 2026

Our analysis

Summary

By order of 5 August 2025 (UPC_CFI_140/2024 and UPC_CFI_657/2025, App_33060/2025), 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 Curio Bioscience against 10x Genomics (EP 2 697 391 B1), and restricted access on 10x Genomics’ side to its UPC representatives, their designated assistants and three named natural persons. The order applies the usual Rule 262A RoP approach to costs proceedings.

Question

How should the court determine, in costs proceedings, which persons on the other side may see the unredacted version of an application containing confidential information?

Decision

Art. 58 UPCA and Rule 262A RoP implement Art. 9 of Directive (EU) 2016/943, the division asks whether the applicant’s grounds significantly outweigh the other party’s interest in full access (paragraphs 1 and 2). The formal requirements are met and the confidential nature of the cost items is not disputed (paragraphs 4 and 5). Access must be limited to what is necessary, with at least one natural person per party in addition to counsel, and depends on each person’s role, the relevance of the information to that role and their trustworthiness (paragraphs 6 and 7). 10x Genomics explained why three individuals needed access, and Curio raised no specific objection (paragraph 9). Curio’s request to align that number with the one allowed in the parallel costs proceedings is rejected, access turning on each person’s role (paragraph 10). A penalty payment may sanction any culpable breach.

Key points for practice

• Practical point: to obtain access for several individuals, a party must justify each person’s role and need to know, an argument of symmetry with other proceedings is not enough.

Provisions applied

Agreement on a Unified Patent Court

Art. 58

Rules of Procedure

Rule 262A

Other provisions

Directive (EU) 2016/943, Art. 9(1) and (2)(a).

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.