UPC CoA 810/2024, App 66516/2024 – Curio Bioscience Inc. v 10x Genomics, Inc.
- Court
- Court of Appeal
- Date
- Outcome
- Application for suspensive effect rejected.
- Sector
- Pharma/Bio
- Decision Type
- Order on application for suspensive effect
Expert Commentary
Full Decision Text
1 Reference no.: UPC CoA 810/2024 App 66516/2024 Order of the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court issued on 17 December 2024 concerning an application for suspensive effect (Rule 223.4 RoP) HEADNOTES: The requirement of an extreme urgency under R 223 RoP has to be established by the applicant. In the present case, the applicant has not evidenced the existence of an extreme urgency. KEYWORDS: Suspensive effect of the appeal, R 223 ROP. APPELLANT AND DEFENDANT IN THE MAIN PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE Curio Bioscience Inc., 4030 Fabian Way, Palo Alto, CA 94303, USA (hereafter referred to as “Curio” or “applicant”) represented by Cameron Marshall and Agathe Michel-de Cazotte, UPC representatives, Carpmaels & Ransford LLP RESPONDENT AND CLAIMANT IN THE MAIN PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE 10x Genomics, Inc., 6230 Stoneridge Mall Road, 94588-3260 Pleasanton, CA, USA (hereafter referred to as “10x”) represented by Professor Dr. Tilman Mueller-Stoy and Dr. Axel Berger, UPC representative, Bardehle Pagenberg PATENT AT ISSUE European patent 2 697 391 B1 LANGUAGE OF THE PROCEEDINGS English DECIDING JUDGE Emmanuel Gougé, Legally qualified judge and Standing judge IMPUGNED ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE □ Order of the Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court, Düsseldorf Local division, dated 03 December 2024 2 □ Reference numbers: App 48598/2024 ORD 48718/2024 ACT 15774/2024 UPC CFI 140/2024 SUMMARY OF THE FACTS AND REQUESTS 1. On 03 December 2024, the Düsseldorf local division ordered Curio, inter alia, to provide security for legal costs and other expenses to the Claimant in an amount of EUR 200,000 within four weeks from the date of service of the order and granted leave to appeal (see impugned order for further details). 2. On 16 December 2024, Curio filed an appeal under Rule 220.2 RoP (PR APL 65956/2024 UPC CoA 805/2024) against said order. 3. Curio filed a separate R 223.4 RoP application for suspensive effect in which it requests the impugned order be given suspensive effect and the application for suspensive effect be decided by the standing judge given the extreme urgency of the application pursuant to R 223.4 RoP. 4. According to Curio, the impugned order is manifestly wrong to the extent it has granted a security for costs to the claimant in the main action because it is contrary to Art. 41(1) UPCA and considers that there is extreme urgency which justifies an order from the standing judge under R 223.4 RoP. REASONS FOR THE ORDER 5. The application for suspensive effect must be dismissed for the following reasons. 6. A dismissal of the application without hearing the respondent is possible within the scope of the discretion of the standing judge under R 223.4 RoP. 7. An appeal shall not have suspensive effect unless the Court of Appeal decides otherwise at the motivated request of one of the parties (Article 74.1 UPCA). 8. In cases of extreme urgency the applicant may apply at any time without formality for an order for suspensive effect to the standing judge (R 223 RoP, first sentence), notwithstanding the provisions of R 223.5 RoP. Suspensive effect, however, shall only be given under exceptional circumstances, especially if the appealed order concerns an order as meant in R 220.2 RoP (see CoA order in ICPillar v ARM, 19 June 2024, ORD 36664/2024, App 35055/2024). 9. The requirement of an extreme urgency has to be established by the applicant. In the present case, Curio has not evidenced the existence of an extreme urgency. 10. Instead, Curio has merely claimed that, if the application for suspensive effect is not treated with extreme urgency, Curio will either be forced to comply with a manifestly wrong order or face the risk of an order for a decision by default on the basis of a manifestly wrong order. 11. Although the criteria of extreme urgency under R 223.4 RoP is clearly distinct from, and does not require, the assessment as to whether the impugned order is “manifestly wrong”, Curio has not convinced the Court that the CFI was manifestly wrong considering the wording of R 158 RoP. Whether the CFI has given a correct interpretation of R 158 RoP regarding Art. 69(4) UPCA will have to be decided by the Court of Appeal at the end of the appeal proceedings. 3 12. In addition, the Court does not consider the circumstances of the present case to be of such an exceptional nature that the interests of Curio outweigh the interest of 10x and the principles of due process. ORDER The application for suspensive effect is rejected. This order is issued on 17 December 2024. Emmanuel Gougé Legally qualified judge and standing judge
Key Holdings
- The applicant bears the burden of establishing the requirement of extreme urgency under Rule 223 RoP.
- An appeal does not automatically have suspensive effect; it must be decided by the Court of Appeal upon a motivated request (Article 74.1 UPCA).
- Suspensive effect is granted only under exceptional circumstances, particularly if the appealed order falls under Rule 220.2 RoP.
- The criteria for extreme urgency under Rule 223.4 RoP are distinct from assessing whether an impugned order is 'manifestly wrong'.
- The Court will not grant suspensive effect if the circumstances are not exceptional enough to outweigh the respondent's interests and principles of due process.
Tags
- Rules of Procedure
- Security for Costs
- Suspensive Effect
- Urgency