10x Genomics v Curio Bioscience (CFI, UPC_CFI_657/2025, 2 February 2026)
| Date | 2 February 2026 |
|---|---|
| Court | CFI |
| Division | Düsseldorf (DE) Local Division |
| Type of action | Generic Order |
| Case number(s) | UPC_CFI_657/2025 |
| Registry reference | UPC_CFI_657/2025 |
| Parties | 10x 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.
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
- Practical point: where the costs incurred clearly exceed the applicable ceiling, the paying party gains little by challenging individual items, the real contest lies in the cost split in the merits decision.
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
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.
Parties
- claimant10x Genomics, Inc.57 decisions in the corpusFollow this party
- defendantCurio Bioscience Inc.29 decisions in the corpusFollow this party
Decisions in the same proceedings and documented appeals
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
EP 2 697 391mentioned in: Dhenne Avocats analysis Follow this patent
Related decisions cited in the analyses
- 10x Genomics v Curio Bioscience (CFI, UPC_CFI_658/2025, 2 February 2026) cited in this record
- 10x Genomics v Curio Bioscience (CFI, 16 June 2025) cited in this record
- Seoul Viosys v expert e-Commerce (CFI, 10 April 2026) cites this decision
- Seoul Viosys v expert e-Commerce (CFI, 9 April 2026) cites this decision
- 10x Genomics v Curio Bioscience (CFI, 27 April 2026) cites this decision
Patents and standards
| Publication | Role in the dispute | Family | Standard and declaration | Pool | Sources |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
EP 2 697 391Method 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 recorded | not recorded | not recorded | Espacenet · 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 |
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.