Opens in a new tab

10x Genomics v Curio Bioscience (CFI, UPC_CFI_657/2025, 2 February 2026)

Date2 February 2026
CourtCFI
DivisionDüsseldorf (DE) Local Division
Type of actionGeneric Order
Case number(s)UPC_CFI_657/2025
Registry referenceUPC_CFI_657/2025
Parties10x Genomics, Inc. v. Curio Bioscience Inc.

Official decision (PDF) · UPC registry entry

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

In a decision of 2 February 2026 (UPC_CFI_657/2025), the judge-rapporteur of the Düsseldorf Local Division ordered 10x Genomics, Inc. to reimburse EUR 180,000 in costs to Curio Bioscience Inc. for the provisional measures proceedings (UPC_CFI_463/2023) and the merits action (UPC_CFI_140/2024) concerning EP 2 697 391. The merits decision of 16 June 2025 had placed 30% of the costs on 10x Genomics. The decision shows that, where the costs incurred far exceed the ceiling, objections to individual items lose any practical effect. A separate decision of the same day (UPC_CFI_658/2025) deals with the reverse cost application.

Question

Are the costs of Swedish and German lawyers, paralegals, multiple representatives and travel recoverable, and to what extent?

Decision

Recoverable costs must have actually been incurred, be necessary and not be disproportionate to the value in dispute, the importance and the complexity of the case, assessed ex ante (paragraphs 18 to 23). Curio’s supplementary submissions met the objection that the costs were not substantiated (paragraph 26). The judge left open whether the costs of Swedish and German lawyers and of paralegals are recoverable: even if they were not, the remaining costs exceed the ceiling, so the amount claimed is still due, he noted in passing that paralegals can reduce costs (paragraphs 27 and 28). Dividing work among several representatives is acceptable where no extra cost is shown, and travel costs are irrelevant for the same reason (paragraph 29). Payment is due by 16 February 2026 (paragraph 30).

Key points for practice

Provisions applied

Agreement on a Unified Patent Court
Art. 69(1)
Rules of Procedure
Rules 150, 151, 152, 153 and 156.2

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.


Going further

Lexicon: Written procedure (UPC), Court fees and costs (UPC).

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_657/2025 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

No other decision in the corpus bears the same case number, and no appeal is documented in the corpus to date.

What the record states

Nature of the act
Generic Order
Outcome (Dhenne Avocats summary)
10x Genomics doit rembourser 180 000 euros de frais à Curio Bioscience. Les contestations sur certains postes sont laissées ouvertes, les frais restants dépassant de toute façon le plafond.
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, 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) · 10x Genomics v Curio Bioscience (CFI, 30 April 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.