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
- StatusCase Closed (Patent infringed)ActionInfringementCategoryMain infringement action
- Parties
- Claimants
- 10x Genomics, Inc.Operating co.
Representatives- Tilman Mueller-Stoy-Bardehle Pagenberg
- Martin Drews-Bardehle Pagenberg
- Axel Berger-Bardehle Pagenberg
Respondents- Curio Bioscience Inc.Operating co.
Representatives- Cameron Marshall-Carpmaels & Ransford
- Agathe Michel-De Cazotte-Carpmaels & Ransford
- Christoph Höhne
- Isabelle Schaller
- Cameron Marschall-Carpmaels & Ransford
- Division
- Dusseldorf LD
- Technology
- ChemistryBiotechnology
- Language
- English
- First decided
- May 2, 2025
- Last decision
- Apr 27, 2026
| Infringement found | Median days to first decision | |
|---|---|---|
| All UPC | 53% (62/117) | 124 |
| Dusseldorf LD | Locked | Locked |
| Judge Ronny Thomas | Locked | Locked |
| Judge Berenice Thom | Locked | Locked |
| Judge András Kupecz | Locked | Locked |
| Judge Martin Schmidt | Locked | Locked |
At the UPC: 10x Genomics, Inc. (40 cases)·Curio Bioscience Inc. (19 cases)
This dispute contains 18 other proceedings
UPC CFI 657/2025·UPC CFI 658/2025·UPC CoA 805/2024·UPC CoA 810/2024·UPC CoA 234/2024 and 13 more
Start a free trial to see how each one ended.
More cases: Dusseldorf LD·2024
- 2026-04-27Infringement 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
- 2025-08-04Application 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)
- 2025-06-16Infringement 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
- 2025-05-02Infringement 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
- 2024-08-08Application 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 title | Date | Public |
|---|---|---|
| Communication | 2026-06-18 | Not public |
| Receipt | 2026-06-18 | Not public |
| Cover sheet | 2026-06-18 | Not public |
| Document Claimant | 2026-06-18 | Not public |
| Order | 2026-04-27 | Not public |
| Order | 2026-04-27 | Public |
| Receipt | 2026-04-16 | Not public |
| Cover sheet | 2026-04-16 | Not public |
| Document Claimant | 2026-04-16 | Not public |
| Communication | 2026-04-07 | Not public |
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.
Infringement of EP 2 697 391 B1 by Curio Bioscience's spatial transcriptomics products
ClaimantLegal basis: Art. 25 UPCANote: 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
ClaimantNote: 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.
Remaining requests in the infringement action
ClaimantReason: Action dismissed in other respects (no detail in excerpt).
Browse other cases on this principle.
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.