Curio Bioscience Inc. v. 10x Genomics, Inc.

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.