Short Summary
This is an appeal before the Court of Appeal concerning the language of proceedings in a patent infringement dispute. Curio Bioscience Inc. appealed an order of the President of the Court of First Instance dated February 26, 2024, which had rejected Curio Bioscience's request to change the language of proceedings from German to English (the language of the patent EP 2 697 391). The dispute arose in the context of a provisional measures application filed by 10x Genomics against Curio Bioscience before the Local Division Düsseldorf. The Court of Appeal addressed the application under Article 49(5) of the UPC Agreement regarding the use of the patent language as the language of proceedings.
Detailed Summary
The proceedings concern a dispute between two US-based companies, Curio Bioscience Inc. (appellant and defendant in the main proceedings before the Court of First Instance) and 10x Genomics, Inc. (respondent and claimant in the main proceedings). The underlying case involves a request for provisional measures filed by 10x Genomics against Curio Bioscience before the Local Division Düsseldorf (ACT_590953/2023, UPC_CFI_463/2023). The patent in suit is European Patent EP 2 697 391. The proceedings before the Court of First Instance were conducted in German. On January 30, 2024, Curio Bioscience filed a request to change the language of proceedings from German to English. This request was rejected by the President of the Court of First Instance on February 26, 2024 (App_5164/2024, UPC_CFI_463/2023). Curio Bioscience then appealed this decision to the Court of Appeal (EPG_CoA_101/2024, ApL_12116/2024).
The central legal issue concerns the application of Article 49(5) of the UPC Agreement, which provides for the possibility of using the language in which the patent was granted as the language of proceedings. Curio Bioscience argued that both parties are US companies, that the language of the underlying technology field is English, and that most documents submitted in the proceedings are only available in English. Curio Bioscience further contended that a change of language would save it the time and costs of translating documents from German to English, and that as the defendant it would be significantly and disproportionately disadvantaged by having to defend itself in German, a language unfamiliar to the company, within very short deadlines. Curio Bioscience employs approximately 30 employees, while 10x Genomics employs approximately 2,000 employees. 10x Genomics requested that the appeal be dismissed, and subsidiarily, pursuant to Article 49(5) of the UPC Agreement, that Curio Bioscience be ordered to provide certified English translations of the German-language pleadings of both parties and any non-English annexes, and to bear the costs thereof. 10x Genomics also requested that Curio Bioscience be ordered to pay the costs of the proceedings.
& Analysis: The order was issued by the Second Panel of the Court of Appeal, composed of Presiding Judge and legally qualified judge Rian Kalden, legally qualified judge and rapporteur Ingeborg Simonsson, and legally qualified judge Patricia Rombach. The headnote (Leitsatz) establishes the guiding principle: when deciding on a request to change the language of proceedings to the language of the patent on grounds of fairness, all relevant circumstances must be considered. The relevant circumstances should primarily relate to the specific case and the position of the parties, particularly the position of the defendant. If the balancing of interests leads to an equal result, the position of the defendant is the decisive factor.
Final Order & Ruling: The order was issued on April 17, 2024, following an oral hearing held on April 2, 2024. The full reasoning and operative part of the order are not fully visible in the provided text, as the document appears to be truncated. The keywords indicate that the order addresses the change of language of proceedings under Article 49(5) of the UPC Agreement.
Practitioner Note
This case demonstrates the evidentiary and procedural standards applied in patent matters before Luxembourg (LU). 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.