UPC_CFI_463/2023 – 10x Genomics v Curio
- Court
- Local Division Düsseldorf
- Date
- Outcome
- Granted
- Sector
- Other
- Decision Type
- PROCEDURAL
Expert Commentary
Change in confidentiality regime Background 1. The JR had granted a confidentiality order and ordered that only a selected group of persons had access to certain information provided by Curio. In his order, the JR had mentioned all the persons by name, including the paralegals of the claimant working on the case. That was probably the result of the way 10x Genomics had drafted its request. Not smart, because paralegals may leave the firm or for any other reason may be replaced. 2. 10x Genomics this time asks to delete these paralegals from the confidentiality club and more generally rule that any person working in the team of the representative would be part of the confidentiality club. The JR The JR (of course) granted the request. Comment 1. That is of course how such confidentiality orders should be granted. The representative is responsible and will be held accountable for this team. It would be very unpractical if you have to go back to the Court every time a team member would leave. 2. As a representative for the opposing party, you should not have the automatic reaction to always disagree. This is a good example. The representative of the defendant should have realized that this all make sense and that disagreeing would not make sense.
Full Decision Text
1 Local Division Düsseldorf UPC_CFI_463/2023 Procedural Order of the Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court issued on 4 June 2025 concerning EP 2 697 391 B1 APPLICANT: 10x Genomics, Inc., 6230 Stoneridge Mall Road, 94588-3260 Pleasanton, CA, USA, legally represented by the Board of Directors, this represented by the CEO Serge Saxonov, ibid, 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., 4030 Fabian Way, Palo Alto, CA 94303, USA, represented by its CEO Stephen Fodor, ibid, 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 PATENT AT ISSUE: European patent n° EP 2 697 391 B1 PANEL/DIVISION: Panel of the Local Division in Düsseldorf DECIDING JUDGES: This order was issued by Presiding Judge Thomas acting as judge-rapporteur. LANGUAGE OF THE PROCEEDINGS: English SUBJECT OF THE PROCEEDINGS: R. 9 RoP – Request to extend or change of the confidentiality club 2 SUMMARY OF FACTS AND STATEMENT OF FORMS OF ORDER SOUGHT BY THE PARTIES: On 11 March 2024, the Court issued an order restricting access to the unredacted versions of the Objection dated 15 February 2024 and Exhibit CR-3 to a specific group of named individuals. This group included the paralegals […] and […]. According to the Applicant, these paralegals will not be available for at least a year, if not longer, for personal reasons. The Applicant’s representatives submit that, in order to ensure proper file management within the organisational structures of the Claimant’s representative’s law firm, at least two of the firm’s paralegals need to have access to the entire file, including the confidential versions of the documents. This is necessary even after the proceedings have been closed, as long as the file remains within the firm. The Applicant therefore requests that the order on confidentiality of 11 March 2024 is changed to include any paralegal in the firm of the UPC representatives of the Applicant who is involved in the present proceedings. The names of paralegal […] and paralegal […] are to be deleted from the order; alternatively: that the order on confidentiality of 11 March 2024 is changed to substitute paralegal […] and foreign language correspondent […] for paralegal […] and paralegal […]. The Defendant requests that the Court i. grants 10x’s request that the names of paralegal […] and paralegal […] are to be deleted from the order; and ii. rejects 10x’s request that the Order is changed to include any paralegal in the firm of the UPC representatives of the Applicant who is involved in the present proceedings; and iii. rejects 10x’s request that the Order is changed to include […] and […] in the confiden- tiality club. The Defendant asserts that the Applicant has not substantiated why proper file management re- quires at least two paralegals of the firm to have access to the confidential information. The De- fendant does not see why it would be necessary for paralegals to have access to the confidential information at this stage of the proceedings. The information classified as confidential relates to purely commercial information that is highly sensitive and prone to abuse if confidentiality cannot be maintained. According to the Defendant, there is no upcoming requirement for the documents containing the confidential information to be read for the purposes of compiling bundles not is it relevant to any upcoming correspondence or case management between the parties. Therefore, 3 the confidentiality club should not be expanded and there should be no replacement of its mem- bers. GROUNDS FOR THE ORDER: In its order dated 11 March 2024, the Court determined the group of individuals entitled to receive access to the information classified as confidential. As far as the Applicant now wishes to replace two members of the confidentiality club for understandable reasons, there are no grounds for objection. In particular, this limited request by the Applicant alone does not provide grounds to question the access rights of paralegals, as the Defendant attempts to do in its response to the request. However, no reasons have been put forward or are apparent for extending the confidentiality club to more paralegals, as further requested by the Applicant. ORDER: I. The order on confidentiality of 11 March 2024 is amended as follows: paralegal […] and paralegal […] are replaced by: paralegal […] and foreign language correspondent […]. II. The further request is rejected. DETAILS OF THE ORDER App_18828/2025 related to the main proceeding ACT_590953/2023 UPC-Number: UPC_CFI_463/2023 Subject of the Proceedings: Application for provisional measures Issued in Düsseldorf on 4 June 2025 NAMES AND SIGNATURES Presiding Judge Thomas
Key Holdings
- Confidentiality regime amended to include 'team members' generally instead of named paralegals.
- Representative responsible for team compliance.
Tags
- Access to Documents
- Case Management
- Confidentiality
- Legal Representation