10x Genomics v Curio Bioscience (CFI, UPC_CFI_658/2025, 2 February 2026)

Dhenne Avocats · 10 October 2026

Our analysis

Summary

By decision of 2 February 2026 (UPC_CFI_658/2025), the judge-rapporteur of the Düsseldorf Local Division fixed the costs Curio Bioscience must reimburse to 10x Genomics for the provisional measures proceedings and the main action on EP 2 697 391, following the decision of 16 June 2025 which found infringement of claim 14 and apportioned costs 70% to the defendant and 30% to the claimant. The total amount is redacted in the published version. The decision is of practical interest for its method: representation costs in provisional measures and on the merits are subject to separate ceilings, which cannot be pooled.

Question

Are representation costs incurred in provisional measures and on the merits subject to a joint ceiling or to separate ceilings, and how does partial success affect reimbursement?

Decision

Costs must have been actually incurred in the proceedings or be directly connected with them, and must be reasonable, meaning in essence necessary, and proportionate, assessed ex ante (paragraphs 17 to 20). As provisional measures costs are separately recoverable, separate ceilings apply and costs may not be shifted from one set of proceedings to the other. Reaching the ceiling remains the exception (paragraphs 22 to 24). Representation costs for the provisional measures were capped at EUR 200,000, translation and interpreting costs fall outside the cap, but travel costs described too vaguely fall within it (paragraph 25). Where success is partial, the 70% quota is applied first to the costs and the ceiling is then reduced in the same proportion (paragraph 26). Travel costs for two representatives at the hearing were allowed (paragraph 27). Payment is due by 16 February 2026 and the remaining claims were dismissed.

Key points for practice

• A claimant cannot shift provisional measures costs exceeding their own ceiling onto the ceiling for the merits (paragraphs 22 to 24).
• Where success is partial, the ceiling is reduced in the same proportion as the costs quota (paragraph 26).

Provisions applied

Agreement on a Unified Patent Court

Art. 69

Rules of Procedure

Rules 150, 151, 152, 153, 156.2 and 157

Other provisions

Administrative Committee decision on the scale of ceilings for recoverable costs, Art. 1(4)

Case law cited

Ortovox v Mammut, Düsseldorf Local Division, 22 April 2025, MSG Maschinenbau v EJP Maschinenbau, Munich Local Division, 19 March 2025

Related decisions

• 10x Genomics v Curio Bioscience, 16 June 2025, decision on the merits apportioning costs.

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.