UPC_CFI_140/2024 – 10x Genomics v Curio
- Court
- Local Division Düsseldorf
- Date
- Outcome
- Granted
- Sector
- Pharma/Bio
- Decision Type
- PROCEDURAL
Expert Commentary
Release of security The Court 1. Both the proceedings and the cost proceedings have ended. 2. The parties did not appeal. 3. The defendant asked for a release of the security. The claimant did not object. 4. The Court released the security.
Full Decision Text
Düsseldorf Local Division UPC CFI 140/2024 Order of the Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court delivered on 27 April 2026 concerning EP 2 697 391 B1 CLAIMANT: 10x Genomics, Inc., legally represented by the Board of Directors, this represented by the CEO Serge Saxonov , 6230 Stoneridge Mall Road, 94588-3260 Pleasanton, CA, USA represented by: Attorney-at-law Prof Dr Tilman Müller-Stoy, Attorney-at-law Dr Martin Drews, Patent attorney Dr Axel Berger, Prinzregenten- platz 7, 81675 Munich, Germany electronic address for service: mueller-stoy@bardehle.de DEFENDANT: Curio Bioscience Inc., represented by its CEO Stephen Fodor 4030 Fabian Way, Palo Alto, CA 94303, USA represented by: Attorney-at-law Agathe Michel-de Cazotte, European Patent attorney Cameron Marshall, 1 Southampton Row WC1B 5HA London, United Kingdom electronic address for service: U010318UC@carpmaels.com co-counsel: Attorney-at-law Dr Christoph Höhne, Attorney-at-law Isabelle Schaller, Breite Strasse 29 – 31, 40213 Düsseldorf, Germany PATENT IN SUIT: European patent n° EP 2 697 391 B1 PANEL/DIVISION: Panel 1 of the Local Division in Düsseldorf DECIDING JUDGES: The order was issued by Presiding Judge Thomas acting as judge-rapporteur, by the legally 2 qualified judge Dr Thom, the legally qualified judge Kupecz and the technically qualified judge Dr Schmidt. LANGUAGE OF THE PROCEEDINGS: English SUBJECT OF THE PROCEEDINGS: R. 352.2 RoP – Release of security SUMMARY OF THE FACTS: 1. The Claimant has brought an action against the Defendants for infringing European patent EP 2 697 391 B1 (hereinafter: “patent in suit”). 2. In its decision dated 16 June 2025, the Court found an infringement of claim 14 of the patent in suit, issued an injunction on that basis and ordered the Defendant to recall and destroy the infringing products, provide information and to compensate the Claimant for damages. The action was dismissed in all other aspects. Regarding costs, the Court ordered that the costs of the PI proceedings and the proceedings on the merits shall be borne by the Claimant in an amount of 30 % and by the Defendant in an amount of 70 %. The value in dispute of the PI proceedings was set at € 2,000,000 and the value of the infringement action at € 3,000,000. No appeal against this decision is pending. 3. On 3 December 2024, the Court ordered the Defendant to provide security for legal costs and other expenses to the Claimant in an amount of € 200,000, either by way of deposit on the UPC account dedicated for security deposits, alternatively by way of bank guarantee issued by a bank licensed in the European Union within four weeks from the date of service of this order. 4. Following this order, Defendants deposited € 200,000 in the UPC account dedicated for security deposits (Exhibit CR-Sec 1). 5. On 2 February 2026, the Court handed down its cost decisions on the parties’ cost applications (UPC CFI 657/2025 and UPC CFI 658/2025). Neither party has appealed against this decisions. The Claimant has received the amount that the Defendant was required to pay them in accordance with these decisions. 6. Consequently, the Defendant filed an application for release of the security on 2 April 2026. 7. The Claimant, who was given the opportunity to comment on the application, did not object to this release. GROUNDS FOR THE ORDER: 8. The decision regarding the repayment of the security for costs is based on R. 352.2 RoP by analogy. The Claimant did not object to the repayment requested by the Defendant. Therefore, the Claimant has no continuing interest in retaining the security. ORDER: The security for costs provided by the Defendant will be released. 3 Düsseldorf on 27 April 2026 NAMES AND SIGNATURES Presiding Judge Thomas Legally qualified judge Dr Thom Legally qualified judge Kupecz Technically qualified judge Dr Schmidt
Key Holdings
- Security can be released once both the main proceedings and cost proceedings have concluded.
- The absence of an appeal by either party facilitates the release of security.
- A request for release of security, unopposed by the claimant, will be granted by the Court.
Tags
- Security for Costs
- Costs
- Procedure