Opens in a new tab

Curio Bioscience v 10x Genomics (CFI, 23 April 2024)

Date23 April 2024
CourtCFI
DivisionDüsseldorf (DE) Local Division
Type of actionGeneric Order
Registry referenceORD_22211/2024
PartiesCurio Bioscience Inc. v. 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 an order of 23 April 2024 (UPC_CFI_463/2023, ACT_590953/2023, ORD_22211/2024), presiding judge Thomas, acting as judge-rapporteur of the Düsseldorf Local Division, allowed the division to issue its orders and decisions in German with a certified English translation, in the provisional measures proceedings brought by 10x Genomics, Inc. against Curio Bioscience Inc. on EP 2 697 391 B1. The Court of Appeal had just made English the language of the proceedings, although the whole case, including the oral hearing, had been conducted in German. The order shows how a local division deals with the practical consequences of a late change of language.

Question

Once the Court of Appeal has changed the language of the proceedings to English, may the judge-rapporteur allow the division to rule in German with a certified English translation?

Decision

Yes. Germany has designated English as an additional language of proceedings for its local divisions and has made the indication contemplated by Rule 14.2(c) RoP, which allows the judge-rapporteur to permit decisions in German accompanied by a certified translation. The division used that option exceptionally: the language changed on 17 April 2024, less than two weeks before the scheduled date of the order, the case is complex, the entire procedure was conducted in German and work on the final order had already begun. Building on that work avoids unnecessary delay. The certified translation serves the purposes of Rule 118.8 RoP.

Key points for practice

Provisions applied

Agreement on a Unified Patent Court
Art. 49(1) and (2)
Rules of Procedure
Rules 14.1(a), 14.1(b), 14.2(c) and 118.8
Case law cited
Curio Bioscience v 10x Genomics, Court of Appeal, 17 April 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.


Going further

Lexicon: Written procedure (UPC), Court fees and costs (UPC).

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

No case number recorded in this record.

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

Nature of the act
Generic Order
Outcome (Dhenne Avocats summary)
La division locale de Düsseldorf est autorisée à rendre ses ordonnances et décisions en allemand, avec traduction certifiée en anglais, après le passage de la procédure à l'anglais décidé par la cour d'appel.
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.