Short Summary
10x Genomics, Inc. brought a claim against Curio Bioscience Inc. for infringement of European patent EP 2 697 391 B1 before the Local Division in Düsseldorf. The court issued an order on 30 April 2024 concerning an application for provisional measures under Rule 206.1 RoP in conjunction with Rule 211.1 RoP, following oral proceedings held on 26 March 2024. The order addresses several key legal questions, including the presumption of entitlement to be registered as patent proprietor, the interpretation of stated purposes in patent claims, the standard for knowledge of infringement, and the applicability of security for costs in urgent proceedings.
Detailed Summary
The Applicant, 10x Genomics, Inc., a company based in Pleasanton, California, USA, represented by CEO Serge Saxonov, brought a claim against the Defendant, Curio Bioscience Inc., a company based in Palo Alto, California, USA, represented by CEO Stephen Fodor, for infringement of European patent EP 2 697 391 B1 (the 'patent at issue'). The proceedings were conducted before the Local Division in Düsseldorf of the Court of First Instance, with the language of proceedings being German. The Applicant was represented by attorneys Prof. Dr Tilman Müller-Stoy and Dr Martin Drews, along with patent attorney Dr Axel Berger, while the Defendant was represented by attorney Agathe Michel-de Cazotte and European Patent Attorney Cameron Marshall. Oral proceedings were held on 26 March 2024, and the order was issued on 30 April 2024 by presiding judge Thomas as judge-rapporteur, legally qualified judge Dr Thom, legally qualified judge Kupecz, and technically qualified judge Dr Schmidt.
The case concerned an application for provisional measures under Rule 206.1 RoP in conjunction with Rule 211.1 RoP. The dispute raised several important legal questions regarding patent infringement proceedings. One key issue was the right to bring an action and the presumption arising from registration in national patent registers. Another issue concerned the interpretation of stated purposes within patent claims and their effect on defining the scope of patent protection. The case also addressed the standard for determining knowledge of infringement, particularly regarding negligent ignorance and wilful blindness. Additionally, the proceedings raised questions about the provision of security for costs and whether this requirement applies in urgent proceedings.
& Analysis: The court addressed four principal legal points in its headnotes. First, regarding the right to bring an action, the court held that when a person is registered as the patent proprietor in the relevant national register, there is a rebuttable presumption under Rule 8.5(c) RoP that the registered person is entitled to be registered. This presumption reverses the burden of explanation and proof, meaning that if the Applicant can rely on their listing in the relevant registers, it falls to the Defendant to demonstrate and prove that the Applicant is not entitled to be registered. Second, with respect to stated purposes in patent claims, the court reasoned that such purposes typically serve to improve understanding of the invention and have the indirect effect of defining the protected subject matter such that it must not only possess the spatial-physical features but must also be designed to be usable for the stated purpose. Third, regarding knowledge of infringement, the court held that grossly negligent ignorance or wilful blindness to an infringement of intellectual property rights is considered equivalent to positive knowledge. The patent proprietor is not under a general obligation to observe the market, but once aware of specific circumstances suggesting infringement, must take all readily available measures to further clarify the situation. The burden of explaining such circumstances triggering a duty to provide information falls on the Defendant. Fourth, concerning security for costs, the court distinguished between Article 69(4) EPC, which only provides for security for costs by the claimant, and Rule 158 RoP, which extends the addressees to include 'the Parties' and thus also the Defendant in the main action. However, the court concluded that in urgent proceedings, there is neither scope nor need for the analogous application of this provision, given the urgent nature of such proceedings.
Final Order & Ruling: The Local Division in Düsseldorf issued its order on 30 April 2024 following oral proceedings on 26 March 2024. The order addressed the application for provisional measures concerning European patent EP 2 697 391 B1 and established important legal principles regarding the presumption of patent proprietorship, the interpretation of stated purposes in patent claims, the standard for knowledge of infringement, and the inapplicability of security for costs requirements in urgent proceedings. The case was identified as UPC_CFI_463/2023.
Practitioner Note
This case demonstrates the evidentiary and procedural standards applied in patent matters before Düsseldorf (DE) Local Division. Understanding the court's reasoning in Curio Bioscience Inc. vs 10x Genomics, Inc. is valuable context for structuring arguments or assessing risk in similar proceedings.
Related Cases
Rematec GmbH & Co KGvsEurope Forestry B.V.
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court refused leave to appeal against an order of the Local Division Mannheim that had rejected Rematec's two cost determination applications as time-barred and dismissed its applications for reinstatement. The Court held that an application for leave to appeal under Rule 157 in conjunction with Rule 221 of the Rules of Procedure is inadmissible insofar as it is directed against the rejection of a reinstatement application, since Rule 320.7 expressly precludes appeals against orders on reinstatement. The Court also rejected Europe Forestry's request to impose costs on Rematec, noting that cost reimbursement is generally not available in cost determination proceedings.
Rematec GmbH & Co KGvsEurope Forestry B.V.
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court refused leave to appeal against an order of the Local Division Mannheim that had rejected Rematec's two cost determination applications as time-barred and denied reinstatement into the missed deadlines. The Court of Appeal held that an application for leave to appeal under R. 157 and R. 221 RoP is inadmissible insofar as it challenges the rejection of a reinstatement application, because R. 320.7 RoP expressly excludes appeals against orders on reinstatement. No arguable grounds for leave to appeal were identified regarding the rejection of retroactive deadline extension requests.
Promosome LLC and The Scripps Research InstitutevsBioNTech SE, BioNTech Manufacturing GmbH, BioNTech Manufacturing Marburg GmbH, BioNTech Innovative Manufacturing Services GmbH, BioNTech Europe GmbH, Pfizer Manufacturing Belgium NV, Pfizer SAS, Pfizer AB, and Pfizer, Inc.
This order of the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court concerns three appeals (UPC-CoA-146/2026, UPC-CoA-147/2026, and UPC-CoA-148/2026) relating to EP 2 401 365. The appellants, Promosome LLC and The Scripps Research Institute, sought a one-month extension of the deadline for lodging their Statements of grounds of appeal, citing heavy professional workload and school holiday periods. Both groups of respondents (BioNTech and Pfizer entities) opposed the extension. The Court of Appeal rejected the applications, holding that the circumstances relied upon were foreseeable and did not justify an extension of the procedural time period.
Kodak Holding GmbH, Kodak GmbH, Kodak Graphic Communications GmbHvsFujifilm Corporation
This is a procedural order from the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court concerning European Patent EP 3 511 174. The Respondents (Kodak entities) requested a one-week extension of the deadline to file written comments on the Applicant's (Fujifilm's) request for rehearing. The Court granted the extension until 23 October 2026, finding the request admissible and well-founded because the Applicant had consented, the extension was brief, and the Respondents' representatives had been occupied preparing for a related oral hearing before the Düsseldorf Regional Court that was postponed shortly before the application was filed.
Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd.vsSercomm Italia SRL
This is a procedural order from the Local Chamber Munich of the Unified Patent Court concerning alternative service of process on Sercomm Italia SRL in a patent infringement action involving European Patent EP 3 611 989 B1. After multiple failed attempts to serve the Italian defendant at its registered business address, the rapporteur had previously ordered under Rule 275.2 RoP that the prior service measures constituted valid service. The present order addresses the fact that notification of that earlier order was unsuccessful and directs additional means of notification to ensure the defendant is informed.
Network System Technologies LLCvsQualcomm Incorporated, Qualcomm Technologies, Inc., Qualcomm Germany GmbH
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court rejected Network System Technologies LLC's (NST) applications for re-establishment of rights under R. 320 RoP. NST had sought to revive its late-filed appeals against the rejection of its R. 190 Applications (production of evidence) in three infringement proceedings against Qualcomm before the Munich Local Division. The Court held that NST failed to demonstrate that all due care had been taken, as the circumstances cited did not constitute exceptional circumstances or excusable error under the precedent set in AIM v Supponor.
Dealing with a patent challenge?
Whether it's a Section 3(d) rejection, a post-grant opposition, or a FRAND dispute, Arctic's patent litigation team has handled it. Get a strategy call.
Disclaimer: This page contains an automated summary based on publicly available judicial records. The content is generated for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Always verify details against the original source judgment before relying on this information for any legal purpose. If you believe any information is inaccurate, please contact us.