Düsseldorf Local Division
UPC_CFI_140/2024
UPC_CFI_658/2025

Procedural Order
of the Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court
issued on 4 August 2025
concerning EP 2 697 391 B1

Claimant:
10x Genomics, Inc., 6230 Stoneridge Mall Road, 94588-3260 Pleasanton, CA, USA, legally repre-sented by the Board of Directors, this represented by the CEO Serge Saxonov, ibid,
represented by: Attorney-at-law Prof Dr Tilman Müller-Stoy, Attorney-at-law Dr Martin Drews, Patent attorney Dr Axel Berger, Prinzregenten-platz 7, 81675 Munich, Germany
electronic address for service: mueller-stoy@bardehle.de

DEFENDANT:
Curio Bioscience Inc., 4030 Fabian Way, Palo Alto, CA 94303, USA, represented by its CEO Dr Ste-phen Fodor, ibid,
represented by: Attorney-at-law Agathe Michel-de Cazotte, European Patent at-torney Cameron Marschall, 1 Southampton Row WC1B 5HA Lon-don, United Kingdom,
electronic address for service: U010318UC@carpmaels.com

PATENT AT ISSUE:
European patent n° EP 2 697 391 B1

PANEL/DIVISION:
Panel of the Local Division in Düsseldorf

DECIDING JUDGES:
This order was issued by Presiding Judge Thomas acting as judge-rapporteur.

LANGUAGE OF THE PROCEEDINGS: English

SUBJECT OF THE PROCEEDINGS: R. 262a RoP – Protection of confidential information

GROUNDS FOR THE ORDER:
1. Art. 9 (1) and (2) (a) of Directive (EU) 2016/943 provide that, in judicial proceedings, access
to documents submitted by the parties or third parties containing trade secrets or alleged
trade secrets may, upon request, be restricted in whole or in part to a limited number of
persons. The protection of confidential information is provided for in Art. 58 UPCA and im-
plemented in R. 262A RoP.
2. According to R. 262A.5 RoP, the Court may allow the application for protection of confiden-
tial information considering in particular whether the grounds relied upon by the applicant
for the order significantly outweigh the interest of the other party to have full access to the
information and the evidence in question.
3. That being said, the application is to be granted subject to the following conditions.
4. The formal requirements of R. 262A.2 and .3 RoP were complied with. The Claimant’s and
the Defendant’s representatives were also heard before the confidentiality order was issued,
as required by R. 262A.4 RoP. They made use of the opportunity to submit observations.
5. The Defendant has correctly not disputed that the claimed cost items constitute confidential
information. Further comments on the issue of confidentiality are therefore unneccessary.
6. According to R. 262A.6 RoP, the number of persons to whom access is restricted shall be no
greater than necessary in order to ensure compliance with the right of the parties to the legal
proceedings to an effective remedy and to a fair trial, and shall include, at least, one natural
person from each party and the respective lawyers or other representatives of those parties
to the legal proceedings.
7. Whether a particular person may be granted full access under R. 262A.6 RoP must be deter-
mined on the basis of the relevant circumstances of the case, including the role of that per-
son in the proceedings before the Court, the relevance of the confidential information to the
performance of that role and the trustworthiness of the person in keeping the information
confidential (UPC_CoA_621/2024, Order of 12 February 2025, par. 12 – Daedalus v. Xiaomi;
UPC_CoA_221/2025, Order of 3 July 2025, par. 17 – NST v. Qualcomm; UPC_CFI_181/2025
(LD Düsseldorf), Order of 15 July 2025, mn. 16 – QIAGEN v bioMérieux; UPC_CFI_837/2024
(LD Düsseldorf), Order of 1 August 2025, mn. 10 – American Wave Machines v Surftown).
8. On this basis, the persons named in the operative part were to be granted access.
9. The fact that Mr […] needs access as Chief Operating Officer (COO) requires no further ex-planation. Against this background, the Claimant correctly does not object to the fact that Mr […]’s access is necessary.
10. In addition, Dr Stephen Fodor was also to be admitted to the confidentiality club. According
to the Defendant, the company is very small, whereas the CEO needs access to the information relating to the Claimant’s costs. The Claimant has not raised any relevant objections to
this. As far as the Claimant submits that „it has been reported to a board member of the Claimant that Dr Fodor is leaving the Defendant“, this is not more than a hearsay and rumour. The Claimant does not claim that Mr Fodor has already left the company. Even if Dr Fodor were to leave the company, he would remain bound by the confidentiality order. Therefore, there is no reason to exclude him from the confidentiality club at this time.
11. The situation is different for Mr […]. The fact that he is a patent agent and a consultant for […] does not, in itself, preclude his admission to the confidentiality club. R. 262A RoP does
not require that the person to whom access is given be an employee of a party or a representative within the meaning of Art. 48 UPCA (UPC_CoA_621/2024, Order of 12 February
2025, par. 13 – Daedalus v. Xiaomi; UPC_CFI_181/2025 (LD Düsseldorf), Order of 15 July
2025, mn. 17 – QIAGEN v bioMérieux). However, the Defendant has failed to explain why Mr
[…] requires access to the information regarding the claimed costs. Unlike Dr Fodor, the De-
fendant’s CEO, Mr […] does not hold a position within the company. If the Defendant never-
theless seeks access to the information classified as confidential, it is its responsibility to ex-
plain Mr […]’s role in more detail, as well as why Mr […] needs access to the confidential
information to fulfil this role. The Defendant has not done so. Referring to Mr […] as someone
who “has been coordinating discussions on this matter” is insufficient, as is making a general
reference to a share of workload.

ORDER:
I. The information highlighted in gray in Claimant’s Application for a cost decision dated 16 July 2025 is classified as confidential within the meaning of Art. 58 UPCA, R. 262.2
RoP.
II. Access to the unredacted version of Claimant’s Application for a cost decision dated
16 July 2025 is restricted, on the part of the Defendant,
1. to Defendant’s legal representatives, insofar as they are authorized to represent
the Defendant before the UPC in the present litigation, and their internal assistants,
whereby only those professionals authorized to represent the Defendant
before the UPC in the present litigation and their assistants from the law firm of
Defendant’s legal representatives have access to the confidential information re-
quired for cooperation in the present litigation,
2. and the following natural persons:
a) Mr […];
b) Dr Stephen Fodor.
III. Information classified as confidential in paragraph I. shall be treated as such by Defendant’s legal representatives, insofar as they are authorized to represent the Claimant
before the UPC in the present litigation, their internal assistants and the natural
persons mentioned in paragraph II.2., and shall not be used or disclosed outside of
these court proceedings, except to the extent that it has come to the knowledge of the
receiving party outside of these proceedings, provided that the receiving party has obtained it on a non-confidential basis from a source other than the Claimant or its affiliates, provided that such a source is not bound by a confidentiality agreement or other obligation of secrecy with the Claimant or its affiliates.
IV. In the event of a culpable breach of this order, the Court may impose a penalty payment for each breach, to be determined having regard to the circumstances of each
case.

DETAILS OF THE ORDER:
App_33044/2025 under ACT_33015/2025 refering to main file reference ACT_15774/2024
UPC-number: UPC_CFI_140/2024 and UPC_CFI_658/2025
Type of procedure: Cost proceedings

Issued in Düsseldorf on 4 August 2025