Opens in a new tab

Curio Bioscience v 10x Genomics (CFI, UPC_CFI_463/2023, ORD_5853/2024, 26 February 2024)

Date26 February 2024
CourtCFI
DivisionDüsseldorf (DE) Local Division
Type of actionApplication for provisional measures
Case number(s)UPC_CFI_463/2023
Registry referenceApp_5164/2024 · ORD_5853/2024 · UPC_CFI_463/2023
PartiesCurio Bioscience Inc. v. 10x Genomics, Inc.

Official decision (PDF) · UPC registry entry

Case timeline

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 an order of 26 February 2024 (UPC_CFI_463/2023, ACT_5164/2024), the President of the Court of First Instance (F. Butin), after consulting the panel of the Düsseldorf Local Division, rejected Curio Bioscience Inc.’s application to make English, the language in which EP 2 697 391 was granted, the language of the provisional measures proceedings brought in German by 10x Genomics, Inc. The order, published in two Registry files, requires concrete evidence in support of a change of language under Art. 49(5) UPCA.

Question

Can the defendant to an application for provisional measures obtain a switch to the language of grant by relying on both parties being US companies, translation costs, its SME status and the interest of the Court of Appeal?

Decision

The President decides on grounds of fairness, taking into account all relevant circumstances, in particular the defendant’s position. A disproportionate disadvantage is not required, significant detriment caused by the initial language being one of those circumstances. Curio provided no detailed information or data on its SME status and identified no circumstance affecting its ability to prepare its defence within the provisional measures timetable. Both parties are equally confronted with a foreign language. The Court’s interest in English on appeal cannot prevail where no other circumstance calls for the change. The application was rejected, without conditions as to translation or interpretation.

Key points for practice

Provisions applied

Agreement on a Unified Patent Court
Art. 49(1), (2), (4) and (5) and Art. 73(2)(a)
Rules of Procedure
Rules 220(c), 322 and 323
Other provisions
Commission Recommendation 2003/361/EC (definition of SMEs)
Case law cited
Aarke v SodaStream Industries, Düsseldorf Local Division, 16 January 2024, order of The Hague Local Division, 18 October 2023 (UPC_CFI_225/2023)

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.


Decisions in the same proceedings

Going further

Lexicon: Application for a preliminary injunction, Order to preserve evidence (UPC).

Publications by Matthieu Dhenne: The Launch Letter: How Generics and Biosimilars Should Write to Avoid UPC Urgency (Kluwer Patent Blog).

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_CFI_463/2023 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

  1. 29 January 2024 10x Genomics v Curio Bioscience (CFI, 29 January 2024) Application for provisional measures · UPC_CFI_463/2023

    Le juge rapporteur fait demander, avec l'accord des parties, l'affectation d'un juge techniquement qualifié à la formation saisie de la demande de mesures provisoires.

  2. 14 February 2024 10x Genomics v Curio Bioscience (CFI, 14 February 2024) Application for provisional measures · UPC_CFI_463/2023

    La demande de confidentialité anticipée est réservée jusqu'au dépôt de la réponse, tout document déposé avec une demande au titre de la règle 262A bénéficiant d'une protection provisoire.

  3. 23 February 2024 10x Genomics v Curio Bioscience (CFI, UPC_CFI_463/2023, ACT_590953/2023, 23 February 2024) Application for provisional measures · UPC_CFI_463/2023

    L'accès aux informations confidentielles est provisoirement limité aux représentants désignés, à deux assistants et à un salarié de la partie adverse. L'exclusion de tout salarié et l'interdiction de participer à des négociations de licence sont refusées.

  4. 23 February 2024 Curio Bioscience v 10x Genomics (CFI, 23 February 2024) Application for provisional measures · UPC_CFI_463/2023
  5. 23 February 2024 10x Genomics v Curio Bioscience (CFI, UPC_CFI_463/2023, ORD_9718/2024, 23 February 2024) Application for provisional measures · UPC_CFI_463/2023

    Les demandes de report et de prorogation du délai de réplique sont rejetées : le délai court du prononcé de l'ordonnance qui le fixe, sans attendre l'issue de la procédure de confidentialité.

  6. 23 February 2024 10x Genomics v Curio Bioscience (CFI, UPC_CFI_463/2023, ORD_9718/2024, 23 February 2024, doc. 2) Application for provisional measures · UPC_CFI_463/2023

    Le délai de réplique court à compter de l'ordonnance qui l'a fixé et n'est ni reporté à la fin de la procédure de confidentialité ni prorogé.

  7. 26 February 2024 Curio Bioscience v 10x Genomics (CFI, UPC_CFI_463/2023, ORD_5853/2024, 26 February 2024) Application for provisional measures · UPC_CFI_463/2023
  8. 26 February 2024 Curio Bioscience v 10x Genomics (CFI, UPC_CFI_463/2023, ORD_5853/2024, 26 February 2024, doc. 2) Application for provisional measures · UPC_CFI_463/2023
  9. 1 March 2024 10x Genomics v Curio Bioscience (CFI, 1 March 2024) Application for provisional measures · UPC_CFI_463/2023

    L'interprétation simultanée de l'audience n'est pas ordonnée, la demanderesse ayant choisi l'allemand et refusé le passage à l'anglais. Les parties peuvent recourir à des interprètes à leurs frais.

  10. 11 March 2024 10x Genomics v Curio Bioscience (CFI, 11 March 2024) Application for provisional measures · UPC_CFI_463/2023

    Les informations commerciales de Curio sont protégées, l'accès étant limité à quatre avocats, deux assistantes et un salarié de 10x Genomics. L'activité technique d'un salarié ne justifie pas à elle seule son exclusion.

  11. 22 March 2024 10x Genomics v Curio Bioscience (CFI, 22 March 2024) Procedural Order · UPC_CFI_463/2023

    Le conseil en brevets de la défenderesse peut plaider en anglais avec interprétation simultanée vers l'allemand à ses frais. La représentante qui maîtrise l'allemand doit plaider dans la langue de procédure.

What the record states

Nature of the act
Application for provisional measures
Outcome (Dhenne Avocats summary)
La demande de passage à l'anglais, langue de délivrance, est rejetée faute d'éléments établissant un préjudice sensible pour le défendeur.
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

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.