UPClytics
View all cases

UPC CFI 140/2024

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

Action number: ACT 15774/2024

Case details
Status
Case Closed (Patent infringed)
Action
Infringement
Category
Main infringement action
Parties
Claimants
Representatives
Respondents
Representatives
Division
Dusseldorf LD
Technology
  • Chemistry
    Biotechnology
Language
English
First decided
May 2, 2025
Last decision
Apr 27, 2026
How this compares
The court's record for this kind of case, counted in first-instance rulings. A figure in brackets is the number of rulings a rate rests on.
Infringement foundMedian days to first decision
All UPC53% (62/117)124
Dusseldorf LDLockedLocked
Judge Ronny ThomasLockedLocked
Judge Berenice ThomLockedLocked
Judge András KupeczLockedLocked
Judge Martin SchmidtLockedLocked

At the UPC: 10x Genomics, Inc. (40 cases)·Curio Bioscience Inc. (19 cases)

Decisions
  • 2026-04-27
    Infringement ActionPublic

    Summary: 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.

    Show the legal issues (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 RoP262APublic

    Summary: 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.

    Show the legal issues (2)
    • Confidentiality order under R. 262A RoP
    • Protection of trade secrets in UPC proceedings (Art. 58 UPCA)
  • 2025-06-16
    Infringement ActionPublic

    Summary: 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.

    Show the legal issues (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 ActionPublic

    Summary: 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.

    Show the legal issues (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 RoP262APublic

    Summary: 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.

    Show the legal issues (4)
    • Confidentiality order (Rule 262A RoP)
    • Access to confidential information
    • Identification of persons in confidentiality club
    • Responsibility for breach of confidentiality
Document titleDatePublic
Communication2026-06-18Not public
Receipt2026-06-18Not public
Cover sheet2026-06-18Not public
Document Claimant2026-06-18Not public
Order2026-04-27Not public
Order2026-04-27Public
Receipt2026-04-16Not public
Cover sheet2026-04-16Not public
Document Claimant2026-04-16Not public
Communication2026-04-07Not public
Coverage: Partial.Reasoning extracted with partial coverage — some sections may be incomplete.
Plain-English summary

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.

Accepted arguments
What the court agreed with — by party.
  • Infringement of EP 2 697 391 B1 by Curio Bioscience's spatial transcriptomics products

    ClaimantLegal basis: Art. 25 UPCA

    Note: 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

    Claimant

    Note: 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.

Rejected arguments
What the court did not agree with — and why.
  • Remaining requests in the infringement action

    Claimant

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

Claim construction notes

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.