ACT_590953/2023

10x Genomics has sufficient standing to bring the action based on registration in the respective national patent registers; this creates a rebuttable presumption reversing the burden of proof

Note: Court held that once applicant demonstrates registration in national registers, it is for the defendant to rebut the presumption of entitlement.

Infringement of EP 2 697 391 B1 (spatial transcriptomics array patent) by Curio Bioscience's arrays in Germany, France and Sweden

Note: Court found infringement and granted the preliminary injunction restraining Curio from offering, marketing or using the infringing spatial transcriptomics arrays in the three territories.

Stated purposes in patent claims indirectly define subject matter protected — product must not only fulfil spatial-physical features but be designed for the stated purpose

Note: Court accepted this purposive interpretation, which helped confirm that Curio's arrays fell within the scope of the claim.

Grossly negligent ignorance or wilful blindness to infringement is equivalent to positive knowledge for the purposes of calculating the urgency clock

Note: Court accepted that a patent holder who becomes aware of circumstances suggesting infringement must take readily available steps to investigate; failure to do so constitutes negligent ignorance equivalent to knowledge.

Request to order Curio Bioscience to compensate 10x Genomics for reputational and other damages incurred as a result of the proceedings

Reason: Rejected by the court without detailed reasoning visible in the excerpt.

Request by 10x Genomics for defendant to provide security for anticipated litigation costs

Reason: Rejected; in urgent provisional measure proceedings, R. 211.1(d) RoP precludes the need for such security given the urgent nature of the proceedings. Art. 69(4) EPC provides security for costs only for claimant, while R. 158 RoP extends this to both parties, but in urgent proceedings there is neither scope nor need for analogous application.