Düsseldorf local division confirms PI decision in 10x Genomics vs Curio

US company 10x Genomics accuses competitor Curio Bioscience of infringing its European patent EP 2 697 391. The patent protects a method and product for localised or spatial detection of nucleic acid in a tissue sample. The patent owner argues that Curio’s Seeker Spatial Transcriptomics Kits directly infringe claim 14 and indirectly infringe claim 1 of the patent.

Last spring, the Düsseldorf local division granted 10x Genomics a preliminary injunction against Curio Bioscience. The judges, led by presiding judge Ronny Thomas, found that Curio infringed claim 14 of EP 391, but not claim 1. Consequently, the court barred Curio from selling devices infringing claim 14 in France, Germany, and Sweden. Curio later withdrew an appeal against the PI decision.

Same panel as in PI

During the oral hearing on the merits in May, the discussion delved deep into the technology of the patent, focusing on two embodiments of claim 1, specified in claims 7 and 9. 10x Genomics argued that these were crucial to the question of infringement. Curio countered that its product clearly differs from EP 391’s patent claim and maintained that its product infringed neither disputed claims.

However, the judges were unimpressed by the lengthy explanations of both parties. As in the PI decision, the Düsseldorf local division has now found Curio’s kits directly infringe claim 14, but dismissed the indirect infringement of claim 1 (case ID: UPC_CFI_140/2024).

The same panel as in the PI proceedings, consisting of presiding judge Ronny Thomas, legally qualified judges Bérenice Thom and András Kupecz, and technically qualified judge Martin Schmidt, ruled on the case.

It is not yet known whether Curio will appeal the decision.

Curio brings in EIP

Both parties largely relied on the same advisory teams as in the previous PI proceedings.

A mixed team from Bardehle Pagenberg led by lawyer Tilman Müller-Stoy and patent attorney Axel Berger argued the case for 10x Genomics.

Mixed IP law firm Carpmaels & Ransford represented Curio Bioscience. London-based partners Agathe Michel-de-Cazotte and Cameron Marshall led the defence. For the merits hearing, IP firm EIP assisted Carpmaels.