1
ORDER
of the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court
issued on 03 March 2025
Withdrawal pursuant to R. 265 RoP
APPELLANT (DEFENDANT IN THE PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE)
Curio Bioscience, Inc, Palo Alto, California, USA (hereinafter “Curio”)
represented by Cameron Marshall, patent attorney, and Agathe Michel-de Cazotte, attorney-at-Law,
Carpmaels & Ransford LLP
RESPONDENT (APPLICANT/CLAIMANT IN THE PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE)
10x Genomics, Inc., Pleasanton, California, USA (hereinafter “10x”)
represented by Prof. Tilmann Müller-Stoy, Martin Drews and Kerstin Galler, attorneys-at-law, Bardehle
Pagenberg, Partnerschaft mbB Patentanwälte Rechtsanwälte
PATENT AT ISSUE
EP 2 697 391
DECIDING PANEL
Panel 1b
Klaus Grabinski, President of the Court of Appeal,
Emmanuel Gougé, legally qualified judge and judge-rapporteur
Emanuela Germano, legally qualified judge
LANGUAGE OF THE PROCEEDINGS
English
Appeal n°:
UPC_CoA_805/2024
APL_65956/2024
App_8290/2025
2
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
□ Numbers attributed by the Court of First Instance:
UPC_CFI_140/2024
ACT_15774/2024
App_48598/2024
ORD_48718/2024
SUMMARY OF FACTS AND PARTIES’ REQUESTS
1. 10x has brought an action for infringement of the patent at issue against Curio in the Düsseldorf Local Division
of the UPC Court of First Instance.
2. On 03 December 2024, the Düsseldorf Local Division ordered Curio, inter alia, to provide security for legal
costs and other expenses to 10x in an amount of EUR 200,000 within four weeks from the date of service of
the order and granted leave to appeal (impugned order).
3. On 13 December 2024, Curio filed an appeal under Rule 220.2 RoP (APL_65956/2024 UPC_CoA_805/2024)
against the impugned order.
4. On 7 January 2025, 10x filed the Statement of response.
5. On 7 February 2025, the judge-rapporteur issued a procedural order pursuant to Rule 108 RoP.
6. In its response to the procedural order, Curio filed on 14 February 2025 an application to withdraw the appeal
pursuant to Rule 265 RoP.
7. By procedural order of 19 February 2025, 10x was given the opportunity to comment on Curio’s request for
withdrawal of the appeal and has not filed any comments in this regard within the granted time period.
GROUNDS
8. As long as there is no final decision in an action, a claimant may, pursuant to Rule. 265.1 RoP, apply to
withdraw his action. The application to withdraw shall not be permitted if the other party has a legitimate
interest in the action being decided by the Court. R. 265.1 RoP applies mutatis mutandi on the withdrawal of
an appeal (see UPC Court of Appeal, 19 February 2025 UPC_CoA 844/2024, APL_68522/2024 para 6),
including an appeal pursuant to R. 220.2 RoP.
9. Considering that 10x has not filed any comments on Curio’s request for withdrawal of the appeal and has
therefore not objected to the request, it cannot be considered to have a legitimate interest in the appeal
being decided by the Court. Thus, the application to withdraw the appeal can be permitted.
3
ORDER
The Court of Appeal:
(i) permits the withdrawal of the appeal (APL_65956/2024, UPC_CoA_805/2024) and declares the
proceedings closed;
(ii) orders that this order shall be entered on the register;
(iii) declares that there is no need for a cost decision.
This order is issued on 03 March 2025
Klaus Grabinski, President of the Court of Appeal
Emanuela Germano, legally qualified judge
Emmanuel Gougé, legally qualified judge and judge-rapporteur
KLAUS STEFAN
MARTIN
Grabinski
Digitally signed by KLAUS
STEFAN MARTIN Grabinski
Date: 2025.03.02 19:14:20
+01'00'
Emanuela
GERMANO
Digitally signed by
Emanuela GERMANO
Date: 2025.03.03
08:53:21 +01'00'
Signé numériquement par
EMMANUEL, LUCIEN,
RENÉ GOUGÉ
Date : 2025.03.03 09:44:16
+01'00'
EMMANUEL,
LUCIEN, RENÉ
GOUGÉ