Opens in a new tab

Curio Bioscience v 10x Genomics (CoA, 28 March 2024)

Date28 March 2024
CourtCoA
DivisionLuxembourg (LU)
Case number(s)UPC_CoA_101/2024
Registry referenceApp_12137/2024 · ORD_16931/2024 · UPC_CoA_101/2024
PartiesCurio 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.

Contact the firm

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

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
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_CoA_101/2024 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

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

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, 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 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.