Curio Bioscience v 10x Genomics (CoA, 17 April 2024)

Dhenne Avocats · 10 October 2026

Our analysis

Summary

By order of 17 April 2024 (UPC_CoA_101/2024), the Court of Appeal set aside the order of the President of the Court of First Instance of 26 February 2024 and determined English, the language of EP 2 697 391, as the language of the provisional measures proceedings brought in German by 10x Genomics against Curio Bioscience before the Düsseldorf Local Division. The order, which carries a headnote, sets out how fairness under Article 49(5) UPCA is to be assessed: the circumstances of the case and of the parties come first, in particular the defendant’s position, which is decisive where the interests are evenly balanced.

Question

Is a change of the language of proceedings to the language of the patent, requested by the defendant, justified on grounds of fairness?

Decision

Although review of the President’s discretion is limited, the order was set aside for misinterpreting fairness (paragraphs 18 to 20). Relevant factors include the language commonly used in the technical field and that of the main evidence. The representatives’ language skills and the judges’ nationality are in principle irrelevant (paragraphs 21 to 23, 26 and 27). Curio is clearly smaller than 10x, so there was no need to decide whether it is an SME (paragraphs 24 and 38). A claimant, who chooses the court and the timing of the action, must expect to proceed in the language of the patent (paragraphs 29 to 34). Both companies being American, and the technology and most of the evidence being in English, the defendant’s interest prevailed (paragraphs 37, 39 and 43). If the order on provisional measures is appealed, the parties must file uncertified English translations of their pleadings at their own cost (Rule 7.2 RoP).

Key points for practice

• Where the interests are evenly balanced, the defendant’s position is decisive for a switch to the language of the patent (headnote and paragraphs 37 to 43).
• The relative size of the parties and the language of the technology and of the evidence carry more weight than the language skills of counsel (paragraphs 21 to 27).

Provisions applied

Agreement on a Unified Patent Court

Arts 49(1), (2), (3), (5) and (6), 50, 52(1), 69 and 74(3)

Rules of Procedure

Rules 7.2, 14.2, 118.5, 150, 152.2, 225, 242.1 and 323

European Patent Convention

Art. 14(8)

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.