Curio Bioscience v 10x Genomics (CoA, 28 March 2024)
| Date | 28 March 2024 |
|---|---|
| Court | CoA |
| Division | Luxembourg (LU) |
| Case number(s) | UPC_CoA_101/2024 |
| Registry reference | App_12137/2024 · ORD_16931/2024 · UPC_CoA_101/2024 |
| Parties | Curio Bioscience Inc. / vs. / 10x Genomics, 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
By order of 28 March 2024 (UPC_CoA_101/2024, App_12137/2024), the Court of Appeal rejected, without examining its merits, the application for protection of confidential information filed by Curio Bioscience in its appeal against the refusal to change the language of the provisional measures proceedings brought by 10x Genomics before the Düsseldorf Local Division (EP 2 697 391). It nevertheless instructed the Registry to make the partially redacted Annex CR-1 available only to the persons named in the Local Division’s order of 11 March 2024. According to the headnote, a first instance order under Rule 262A RoP that has not been appealed remains in force after the proceedings have ended, and so during the appeal, unless the order provides otherwise.
Question
Is a fresh confidentiality order needed on appeal where the Local Division’s order already protects the same information?
Decision
Article 9(1), second subparagraph, of Directive (EU) 2016/943 indicates that the confidentiality obligation continues after the legal proceedings have ended, any other limit having to be expressly ordered (paragraph 9). The order of 11 March 2024 prohibits use of the information outside the proceedings, which covers any proceedings before the UPC, including the appeal (paragraphs 11 and 12). Curio’s application was therefore superfluous for lack of a legitimate interest, and documents already filed at first instance may simply be referred to (paragraph 13). The wider circle of persons suggested by 10x Genomics was not before the Court, since the Local Division’s order had not been appealed (paragraph 14).
Key points for practice
- A confidentiality order made at first instance continues to apply on appeal unless it provides otherwise (headnote and paragraphs 9 to 12).
- The appeal is not the place to change the circle of authorised persons fixed by an order that was not challenged (paragraph 14).
Provisions applied
- Rules of Procedure
- Rules 102 and 262A
- Directive (EU) 2016/943 on trade secrets
- Art. 9(1), second subparagraph
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: UPC Court of Appeal.
Dhenne Avocats blog: UPC Appeals: What the Numbers Show.
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
- claimantCurio Bioscience Inc.29 decisions in the corpusFollow this party
- claimantvs2 decisions in the corpusFollow this party
Decisions in the same proceedings and documented appeals
What the record states
- Outcome (Dhenne Avocats summary)
- La demande de confidentialité présentée en appel est rejetée sans examen au fond, l'ordonnance de la division locale du 11 mars 2024 protégeant déjà les informations pendant l'appel. Le greffe limite l'accès à l'annexe CR-1 aux personnes qu'elle désigne.
- Appeal
- Decision of the Court of Appeal.
- Instance
- Court of Appeal decision.
Patents mentioned
EP 2 697 391mentioned in: Dhenne Avocats analysis Follow this patent
Related decisions cited in the analyses
- Fives ECL v REEL (CoA, 17 July 2026) cites this decision
- Kodak v Fujifilm (CoA, 21 August 2025) cites this decision
- Insulet v A. Menarini Diagnostics (CoA, APL_64383/2024, 9 January 2025) cites this decision
- Curio Bioscience v 10x Genomics (CoA, ORD_37131/2024, 20 June 2024) 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, UPC_CFI_657/2025, 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) | 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.