2024-04-30 - LD Düsseldorf - 10x Genomics v. Curio Bioscience - UPC_CFI_463/2023
- Aktenzeichen:
- UPC_CFI_463/2023
- Datum:
- Spruchkörper:
- Court of First Instance - Düsseldorf (DE) Local Division
- Art:
- Order
- Parteien:
- Curio Bioscience Inc. v. 10x Genomics, Inc.
Kernaussage: 1.
2024-04-30 - LD Düsseldorf - 10x Genomics
v.
Curio Bioscience - UPC_CFI_463/2023
1. If in the case of a European patent a person is registered as the patent proprietor in the respective national register, there is a rebuttable presumption that the person recorded in the respective national register is entitled to be registered (R. 8.5(c) RoP). The result of such a legal presumption is to reverse the burden of explanation and proof with regard to the presumed fact. If the Applicant can refer to his listing in the registers relevant to the respective dispute, it is up to the Defendant's side to set out and, if necessary, prove that the Applicant is not entitled to be registered.
2. If a patent claim contains stated purposes, these usually serve to improve understanding of the invention. As a rule, they have the indirect effect of defining the subject matter protected by the patent in such a way that it must not only fulfil the spatial-physical features, but must also be designed to be usable for the purpose stated in the patent claim.
3. If the Applicant lacks positive knowledge of an infringement of property rights, grossly negligent ignorance or wilful blindness to an infringement of intellectual property rights is considered equivalent to such knowledge. The patent proprietor is not under a general obligation to observe the market. However, as soon as the holder of a property right becomes aware of specific circumstances that suggest an infringement of his property right, he is expected to take all measures readily available to him and to further clarify the circumstances. It is up to the Defendant to explain such circumstances triggering a duty to provide information.
4. While Art. 69(4) EPC only provides for the provision of security for costs by the claimant, R. 158 RoP extends the group of addressees of such an Order to include "the Parties"; and thus also the Defendant in the main action. In urgent proceedings, there is neither scope nor (with regard to R. 211.1(d) RoP) a need for the (analogous) application of the provision, given the urgent nature of such proceedings.
landmark
In a landmark preliminary-injunction order, the Düsseldorf Local Division granted 10x Genomics a PI against Curio Bioscience for sale of the 'Curio Seeker Spatial Mapping KIT' in Germany, France and Sweden, based on direct infringement of claim 14 of EP 2 697 391 B1 (spatial transcriptomics array). The panel confirmed that R. 8.5(c) RoP establishes a rebuttable presumption of entitlement to apply where the applicant is registered as proprietor in the relevant national registers, reversing the burden of explanation and proof. Stated purposes in patent claims do not merely aid understanding but indirectly delimit subject-matter scope. On validity, the panel held that a patent granted without opposition and unchallenged for several years benefits from a strong presumption of validity, and the alleged prior art (Chen, Chetverin, Harvard, Kuhn) did not raise significant doubts on summary examination (Art. 62(4) UPCA, R. 211.2 RoP). Indirect infringement of method claim 1 was denied because the bead-based kit destroys the array before the release step of feature 1.6. Urgency was satisfied: no positive knowledge of DE/FR/SE distribution before October 2023, the application was filed 4 December 2023 within one month of specific knowledge, and grossly negligent ignorance was not established — there is no general market-observation duty. Weighing of interests favoured the applicant: direct competitors, long-term research-project lock-in, and unproven irreparable harm to the defendant. The court held that R. 158 et seq. RoP security-for-costs has no scope of application in urgent proceedings (R. 211.1(d) interim cost award suffices); both parties received EUR 100,000 interim costs given their partial success. Enforcement is conditional on applicant security of EUR 2,000,000.
Stichwörter
Right to bring an action; register; presumption; stated purpose; urgency; knowledge of infringement; negligent ignorance; weighing-up of interests; security for costs
Nichtigkeitsgründe
Art. 138 EPCNovelty
Patent invalid (this ground)Art. 54 EPC · Art. 138(1)(a) EPC
“Claim 14 held novel over Chen (US 2010/0035763), Chetverin (US 2003/0162210), Harvard (WO 2012/048341, Art. 54(3) EPC), and Kuhn et al. on summary examination; feature 14.3.2.1 (poly-T ≥ 10 dT) not disclosed in Chen; Chetverin/Harvard/Kuhn lack positional domain.”
Inventive Step
Patent invalid (this ground)Art. 56 EPC · Art. 138(1)(a) EPC
“No significant doubts on inventive step raised; Chen does not teach localised detection in intact tissue; Chetverin lacks positional domain, so obviousness arguments are incomplete.”
Inoffiziell
Inoffizielle KI-Übersetzung
Dies ist eine automatische, von KI erstellte Übersetzung, die Fehler enthalten kann. Rechtsverbindlich ist allein das Originaldokument in der Verfahrenssprache (German).