10x Genomics v Vizgen (CFI, 22 October 2023)

Dhenne Avocats · 10 October 2026

Our analysis

Summary

By an order of 22 October 2024 (UPC_CFI_22/2023, ACT_460565/2023, ORD_49705/2024), the Hamburg Local Division (S. Klepsch, presiding judge and judge-rapporteur, S. Schilling, M. Kokke, and A. Burrichter, technically qualified judge), on Vizgen, Inc.’s application for review under Rule 333 RoP in the action brought by 10x Genomics, Inc. and the President and Fellows of Harvard College for infringement of EP 4 108 782, varied the judge-rapporteur’s order of 15 August 2024: the claimants must produce emails, an internal FAQ document and a deposition transcript from the parallel proceedings before the Delaware court. Leave to appeal was granted.

Question

Is an order for the production of documents under Rule 190 RoP open to review by the panel, and does an abuse-of-rights defence justify production of documents from the US proceedings?

Decision

A production order is a case management decision and may be reviewed under Rule 333.1 RoP. Abuse of rights may be raised before the UPC if it relates to the contractual relationship and the subject matter of the claims. The emails may support the inference that 10x Genomics acquired and expanded its position to push out competitors, with Harvard’s knowledge, and the FAQ document that the litigation was used to unsettle customers: their production is ordered. The request concerning sales below cost is rejected, predatory pricing being a matter for competition authorities and courts. As the documents already exist in the US proceedings, production is not disproportionate, and Vizgen need not first use the 35 U.S.C. § 1782 procedure. The documents are restricted to outside attorneys registered in the CMS, to the exclusion of the parties’ employees.

Key points for practice

• Practical point: an abuse-of-rights defence may open access before the UPC to documents produced in US proceedings, under a confidentiality regime limited to outside attorneys.

Provisions applied

Agreement on a Unified Patent Court

Art. 1(1), Art. 59(1) and Art. 73(2)(b)

Rules of Procedure

Rules 190, 191, 220.2, 224.1(b), 262A and 333

Regulation (EU) No 1257/2012

Art. 5(3)

Case law cited

Plant-e v Arkyne, The Hague Local Division, 4 March 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.