UPClytics
Alle Fälle anzeigen

UPC CFI 140/2024

26. März 2024·EP2697391 · METHOD AND PRODUCT FOR LOCALISED OR SPATIAL DETECTION OF NUCLEIC ACID IN A TISSUE SAMPLE

Hauptaktenzeichen: ACT 15774/2024

Verfahrensdetails
Status
Case Closed (Patent verletzt)
Verfahrensart
Verletzung
Kategorie
Hauptverletzungsklage
Parteien
Kläger
Vertreter
Beklagte
Vertreter
Division
Dusseldorf LD
Technologie
  • Chemistry
    Biotechnology
Sprache
English
Erste Entscheidung
2. Mai 2025
Letzte Entscheidung
27. Apr. 2026
Im Vergleich
Die Bilanz des Gerichts für diese Art von Verfahren, gezählt in erstinstanzlichen Entscheidungen. Eine Zahl in Klammern gibt an, auf wie vielen Entscheidungen eine Quote beruht.
Verletzung festgestelltMedian Tage bis zur ersten Entscheidung
Gesamt-UPC53% (62/117)124
Dusseldorf LDGesperrtGesperrt
Richter Ronny ThomasGesperrtGesperrt
Richter Berenice ThomGesperrtGesperrt
Richter András KupeczGesperrtGesperrt
Richter Martin SchmidtGesperrtGesperrt

Vor dem UPC: 10x Genomics, Inc. (40 Verfahren)·Curio Bioscience Inc. (19 Verfahren)

Entscheidungen
  • 2026-04-27
    Infringement ActionÖffentlich

    Zusammenfassung: The Court ordered the release of the security for costs of €200,000 deposited by the Defendant pursuant to the Court's order of 3 December 2024. Following the resolution of cost proceedings (UPC_CFI_657/2025 and UPC_CFI_658/2025) and payment of the awarded amounts, the Claimant did not object to release. The security was released under R. 352.2 RoP by analogy.

    Rechtsfragen anzeigen (2)
    • Release of security for costs under R. 352.2 RoP by analogy
    • Cessation of claimant's interest in retaining security following satisfaction of cost orders
  • 2025-08-04
    Application RoP262AÖffentlich

    Zusammenfassung: Procedural order granting an application for protection of confidential information (R. 262A RoP) concerning the patent EP 2 697 391 in infringement proceedings between 10x Genomics and Curio Bioscience. The court granted the confidentiality application subject to conditions, restricting access to specified cost items to a limited number of persons.

    Rechtsfragen anzeigen (2)
    • Confidentiality order under R. 262A RoP
    • Protection of trade secrets in UPC proceedings (Art. 58 UPCA)
  • 2025-06-16
    Infringement ActionÖffentlich

    Zusammenfassung: Decision of the Düsseldorf Local Division finding that Curio Bioscience infringes EP 2 697 391 B1 owned by 10x Genomics. The court ordered: (A) cessation of the infringing acts in UPC member states; (B) recall from distribution channels; (C) permanent removal from distribution channels; (D) rendering of accounts; (E) damages for acts after 30 November 2019; (F) periodic penalty payments of up to EUR 100,000 per day. The action was dismissed in other respects. Costs: borne 30% by claimant, 70% by defendant. Value in dispute set at EUR 3,000,000; ceiling for recoverable representation costs EUR 400,000.

    Rechtsfragen anzeigen (4)
    • Claim construction – independent construction by the court
    • First reference to subclaims at oral hearing – admissibility
    • Infringement under Art. 25 UPCA
    • Injunction, recall, removal and destruction under Art. 63-64 UPCA
  • 2025-05-02
    Infringement ActionÖffentlich

    Zusammenfassung: Interim procedure closure order in 10x Genomics, Inc. v. Curio Bioscience Inc. at Düsseldorf Local Division (EP 2 697 391 B1). Directions for the oral hearing were issued including: (1) translation of claim motions into English; (2) guidance on publication/media order requirements (Art. 80 UPCA); (3) clarification of 'such as' wording in supporting documents request; (4) parties to submit cost estimates (R. 104(k) RoP); (5) parties may upload hearing aids. Interim procedure closed.

    Rechtsfragen anzeigen (3)
    • Closure of interim proceedings (R. 103, 104, 110.1 RoP)
    • Requirements for publication order (Art. 80 UPCA)
    • Format of motions and supporting documents
  • 2024-08-08
    Application RoP262AÖffentlich

    Zusammenfassung: Procedural order on a confidentiality club application (Rule 262A RoP) in proceedings involving 10x Genomics v Curio Bioscience. The court set rules for access to confidential information, including access for named party representatives and their teams, with responsibility for maintaining confidentiality.

    Rechtsfragen anzeigen (4)
    • Confidentiality order (Rule 262A RoP)
    • Access to confidential information
    • Identification of persons in confidentiality club
    • Responsibility for breach of confidentiality
DokumenttitelDatumÖffentlich
Mitteilung2026-06-18Nicht öffentlich
Receipt2026-06-18Nicht öffentlich
Cover sheet2026-06-18Nicht öffentlich
Document Claimant2026-06-18Nicht öffentlich
Anordnung2026-04-27Nicht öffentlich
Order2026-04-27Öffentlich
Receipt2026-04-16Nicht öffentlich
Cover sheet2026-04-16Nicht öffentlich
Document Claimant2026-04-16Nicht öffentlich
Mitteilung2026-04-07Nicht öffentlich
Abdeckung: Teilweise.Begründung teilweise extrahiert — einige Abschnitte können unvollständig sein.
Zusammenfassung in einfacher Sprache

10x Genomics, Inc. sued Curio Bioscience Inc. for infringement of EP 2 697 391 B1, a patent for localised/spatial detection of nucleic acid in tissue samples (spatial transcriptomics), at the Düsseldorf Local Division. The court found infringement and ordered Curio to cease infringing acts, recall products from commerce, permanently remove them from distribution, provide a full accounting, and pay damages for acts from 30 November 2019 onwards, with penalty payments of up to EUR 100,000 per day for non-compliance.

Angenommene Argumente
Was das Gericht akzeptiert hat — nach Partei.
  • Infringement of EP 2 697 391 B1 by Curio Bioscience's spatial transcriptomics products

    KlägerRechtsgrundlage: Art. 25 UPCA

    Hinweis: The Düsseldorf Local Division found Curio Bioscience liable for infringing 10x Genomics' spatial transcriptomics patent and granted an injunction, recall, removal from commerce, and accounting.

  • First reference to additional subclaims at oral hearing admissible where feature was already in dispute and subclaims merely provide additional arguments

    Kläger

    Hinweis: Court articulated this as a headnote, citing the Court of Appeal's Insulet v. EOFlow ruling that claim construction is a matter of law and the court construes claims independently.

Zurückgewiesene Argumente
Was das Gericht nicht akzeptiert hat — und warum.
  • Remaining requests in the infringement action

    Kläger

    Begründung: Action dismissed in other respects (no detail in excerpt).

Hinweise zur Anspruchsauslegung

The court confirmed that claim construction is a matter of law and must be performed independently by the court. On subclaim admissibility, the court held that first reference to subclaims at oral hearing is admissible where the disputed feature was already in issue and the subclaims provide additional legal arguments rather than new factual assertions.