Curio Bioscience v 10x Genomics (CoA, ORD_37131/2024, 20 June 2024)

Dhenne Avocats · 10 October 2026

Our analysis

Summary

By order of 20 June 2024 (UPC_CoA_234/2024), the Court of Appeal rejected Curio Bioscience’s Rule 262A RoP application in the appeal brought by 10x Genomics against the Düsseldorf Local Division’s order on provisional measures (EP 2 697 391). The information concerned remains protected by the first-instance order of 11 March 2024, which was not appealed, so no new order is needed. The Registry of the Court of Appeal will grant access to the unredacted Statement of response only to the persons named in that order and bound by the duty of confidentiality. The same document appears twice on the register.

Question

Is a new Rule 262A order required where information already protected at first instance appears in a pleading lodged on appeal?

Decision

No. Following the principles of its order of 28 March 2024 in the appeal on the language of proceedings, the Court held that a Rule 262A order that has not been appealed continues to apply after the proceedings, and therefore on appeal, to the same information contained in another pleading (paragraphs 4 and 6). The application was rejected without any need to hear 10x (paragraph 7).

Key points for practice

• A party lodging on appeal information already protected at first instance need not seek a new order. Access to the unredacted version remains limited to the persons named at first instance (paragraphs 4 to 6).

Provisions applied

Rules of Procedure

Rule 262A

Case law cited

Curio Bioscience v 10x Genomics, Court of Appeal, 28 March 2024 (UPC_CoA_101/2024)

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.