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

Dhenne Avocats · 10 October 2026

Our analysis

Summary

In an order of 17 December 2024 (UPC_CoA_810/2024), the standing judge of the Court of Appeal rejected Curio Bioscience’s application for suspensive effect against the Düsseldorf Local Division’s order of 3 December 2024, which required it to provide security of €200,000 for 10x Genomics’ legal costs within four weeks (EP 2 697 391). The order confirms that suspensive effect remains exceptional, all the more so in an appeal against a procedural order, and that extreme urgency must be established by the applicant, separately from any claim that the impugned order is manifestly wrong.

Question

Do extreme urgency and exceptional circumstances justify suspending an order for security for costs pending an appeal brought under Rule 220.2?

Decision

The standing judge may reject the application without hearing the respondent (paragraph 6). Suspensive effect is granted only in exceptional circumstances, particularly where the impugned order falls under Rule 220.2 (paragraph 8). Curio did not establish extreme urgency: it merely argued that it would have to comply with a manifestly wrong order or risk a default decision (paragraphs 9 and 10). Whether an order is manifestly wrong is a test distinct from urgency. In the light of Rule 158 the order did not appear manifestly wrong, its interplay with Article 69(4) UPCA being a matter for the appeal on the merits (paragraph 11). Curio’s interests did not outweigh those of 10x Genomics and the requirements of due process (paragraph 12).

Key points for practice

• An application for suspensive effect made on grounds of extreme urgency must prove that urgency with its own evidence, separate from criticism of the impugned order.
• The risk of a default decision for failure to provide security does not in itself amount to exceptional circumstances.

Provisions applied

Agreement on a Unified Patent Court

Arts 41(1), 69(4) and 74(1)

Rules of Procedure

Rules 158, 220.2 and 223

Case law cited

ICPillar v ARM, Court of Appeal, 19 June 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.