10X Genomics v. Curio Bioscience: Spatial Transcriptomics Case Dismissed After 934 Days
10X Genomics and Prognosys Biosciences filed suit in the District of Delaware against Curio Bioscience, asserting five spatial transcriptomics patents against the Curio Seeker kit product line. The parties stipulated to dismiss all claims and counterclaims with prejudice after 934 days of litigation, with each side bearing its own costs.
Five Spatial Transcriptomics Patents, One Dismissed Delaware Action
On December 1, 2023, 10X Genomics, Inc. and Prognosys Biosciences, Inc. filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware (Case No. 1:23-cv-01375) against Curio Bioscience, Inc., asserting five U.S. patents — US10480022B2, US11761030B2, US11549138B2, US11001879B1, and US10662468B2 — covering spatial transcriptomics technologies. The accused products were the Curio Seeker 10x10 kit, the Curio Seeker 3x3 kit, the Curio Seeker Kit, and the Curio Seeker bioinformatics pipeline.
The recorded Basis of Termination is 'Case Dismissed.' The docket order states that the parties stipulated under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) to dismiss all claims and counterclaims with prejudice, with each party bearing its own costs, expenses, and attorneys' fees. The case was assigned to Judge Maryellen Noreika and closed on June 22, 2026.
The case ran for 934 days before resolution — a duration that suggests the parties engaged in substantial pre-trial proceedings before reaching this stipulated exit. Why the parties chose this resolution path, and whether any commercial arrangement underlies the dismissal, is not disclosed in the available public record.
See Complete Case & Patent Analysis →Filing to Case Dismissed in 934 days
934 days from filing to close — longer than the median patent case in D. Del.
Five Spatial Transcriptomics Patents at the Core of This Action
Any company developing or commercialising spatial transcriptomics kits, barcoded capture arrays, or associated bioinformatics pipelines should treat this portfolio as a live FTO priority. The Curio Seeker product line — a bead-based spatial capture kit — was the subject of a 934-day, five-patent enforcement action. If your product involves in situ gene expression mapping, spatially-barcoded substrates, or tissue analysis workflows, your FTO scope should encompass all five asserted patents, not just the broadest claim family.
Official order — verbatim text
The stipulation invokes Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii), a self-executing joint dismissal that requires no judicial approval. The 'with prejudice' designation carries full res judicata effect as to the named parties and the five asserted patents, permanently barring re-litigation of these specific claims between 10X Genomics, Prognosys, and Curio Bioscience. The specific commercial or legal terms, if any, that prompted the parties to file this stipulation are not disclosed in the available public record.
Dismissed with prejudice: what the stipulated exit means for both parties
Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii): a stipulated dismissal with prejudice
A Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) dismissal is filed jointly by all parties and requires no court order — it takes effect upon filing. The 'with prejudice' designation means the plaintiffs cannot re-file the same claims against Curio Bioscience on these five patents. It is a final termination of the action. The specific terms motivating the parties' agreement are not disclosed in the available public record.
Final — no re-filing permittedPlaintiffs cannot reassert these claims against Curio Bioscience
By agreeing to dismiss with prejudice, 10X Genomics and Prognosys have extinguished their right to bring the same infringement claims against Curio Bioscience on the five asserted patents. The patents themselves remain in force and could be asserted against other parties. What, if anything, 10X Genomics or Prognosys received in exchange is not disclosed in the available public record.
Patents intact; claims vs. Curio closedCurio Bioscience exits litigation on the Curio Seeker product line
Curio Bioscience secured dismissal of all infringement claims and counterclaims with prejudice. The Curio Seeker kits and bioinformatics pipeline are no longer the subject of this action. Each party bears its own costs. Whether the dismissal reflects a design-around, a commercial resolution, or simply a litigation strategy decision is not disclosed in the available public record.
All claims extinguishedSpatial transcriptomics IP enforcement remains live for third parties
The five asserted patents covering spatial transcriptomics methods remain active and enforceable. Other companies operating in the spatial biology space — whether offering bead-based capture arrays, tissue-mapping kits, or related bioinformatics pipelines — should note that 10X Genomics and Prognosys have demonstrated willingness to enforce this portfolio through prolonged litigation. Third parties are not covered by this dismissal.
Portfolio remains enforceable vs. othersFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | 10X Genomics, Inc. | Company | /Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Co-Plaintiff | Prognosys Biosciences, Inc. | Company | Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | Curio Bioscience, Inc. | Company | /Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Alexandra M. Ewing | Attorney | Counsel for 10X Genomics, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Azra Hadzimehmedovic | Attorney | Counsel for 10X Genomics, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Daniel Kazhdan | Attorney | Counsel for 10X Genomics, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Frederick L. Cottrell , III | Attorney | Counsel for 10X Genomics, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Gabriela Monasterio | Attorney | Counsel for 10X Genomics, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Grace Gretes | Attorney | Counsel for 10X Genomics, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Jason James Rawnsley | Attorney | Counsel for 10X Genomics, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Joanna Schacter | Attorney | Counsel for 10X Genomics, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | John C. Pierce | Attorney | Counsel for 10X Genomics, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Kiley White | Attorney | Counsel for 10X Genomics, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Li Shen | Attorney | Counsel for 10X Genomics, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Matthew Powers | Attorney | Counsel for 10X Genomics, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Natasha M. Saputo | Attorney | Counsel for 10X Genomics, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Parshad K. Brahmbhatt | Attorney | Counsel for 10X Genomics, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Paul Ehrlich | Attorney | Counsel for 10X Genomics, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Robert L. Gerrity | Attorney | Counsel for 10X Genomics, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Ronald J. Pabis | Attorney | Counsel for 10X Genomics, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Stefani C. Smith | Attorney | Counsel for 10X Genomics, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Richards Layton & Finger PA | Law Firm | Representing 10X Genomics, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Adam D. Smith | Attorney | Counsel for Curio Bioscience, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Allyson C. Corigliano | Attorney | Counsel for Curio Bioscience, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Andrew D. Lazerow | Attorney | Counsel for Curio Bioscience, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Andrew Krause | Attorney | Counsel for Curio Bioscience, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Brian E. Farnan | Attorney | Counsel for Curio Bioscience, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Douglas A. Behrens | Attorney | Counsel for Curio Bioscience, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Eric R. Sonnenschein | Attorney | Counsel for Curio Bioscience, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Ian M. Hurst | Attorney | Counsel for Curio Bioscience, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Jeffrey B. Elikan | Attorney | Counsel for Curio Bioscience, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Kevin B. Collins | Attorney | Counsel for Curio Bioscience, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Laura M. Martin | Attorney | Counsel for Curio Bioscience, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Madison Arent | Attorney | Counsel for Curio Bioscience, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Matthew Kudzin | Attorney | Counsel for Curio Bioscience, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Michael J. Farnan | Attorney | Counsel for Curio Bioscience, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Paul Enriquez | Attorney | Counsel for Curio Bioscience, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Priscilla G. Dodson | Attorney | Counsel for Curio Bioscience, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Robert T. McMullen | Attorney | Counsel for Curio Bioscience, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Yiye Fu | Attorney | Counsel for Curio Bioscience, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Farnan LLP | Law Firm | Representing Curio Bioscience, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge Maryellen Noreika | Judge | Delaware District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
R&D signals in the spatial transcriptomics IP space
Forward-looking patent and innovation signals derived from the 10X Genomics and Prognosys portfolio enforcement action against Curio Bioscience's spatial transcriptomics products.
10X Genomics & Prognosys: a deep spatial biology filing programme
The five asserted patents span multiple application numbers and filing dates, consistent with a disciplined continuation strategy. Monitoring the broader 10X Genomics and Prognosys filing activity in spatial transcriptomics — including pending continuations and divisionals from these application families — can reveal where the portfolio perimeter is expanding and which technical sub-domains are being locked down next.
Portfolio expansion riskBarcoded spatial capture arrays: a crowded and contested filing space
Spatially-barcoded substrate technologies — the core technical concept underlying the asserted patents — have attracted growing patent activity from multiple genomics instrument companies. Mapping the density and assignee distribution of filings in this sub-class over the past five years can identify which players are building defensive positions and where genuine white space remains for differentiated approaches.
Filing density risingCurio Bioscience's own patent activity in spatial biology
Curio Bioscience's response to this litigation — and the ultimate with-prejudice exit — raises questions about its own IP position. Reviewing Curio's patent filings and any pending applications in spatial transcriptomics methods can reveal whether it is building a counter-portfolio, pursuing design-arounds, or relying primarily on freedom-to-operate through non-infringing implementations.
Defensive portfolio watchAdjacent R&D opportunities beyond barcoded array capture
The concentration of 10X Genomics and Prognosys IP in barcoded capture-based spatial transcriptomics suggests adjacent approaches — such as imaging-based spatial methods, single-cell spatial proteomics, or microfluidic spatial workflows — may represent lower-encumbrance innovation corridors. Identifying claim gaps around alternative spatial detection modalities could be strategically valuable for R&D teams seeking freedom to operate.
Innovation white spaceSimilar Spatial Transcriptomics Patent Cases in U.S. District Courts
Explore patent infringement actions involving spatial transcriptomics, genomics sequencing tools, and barcoded array technologies filed in U.S. district courts.
What this case signals for the spatial transcriptomics IP landscape
A 934-day enforcement action across five patents signals the depth of the spatial biology IP thicket — and the cost of navigating it.
Five-patent enforcement signals a broad spatial transcriptomics IP perimeter
Asserting five patents simultaneously against a single product line suggests 10X Genomics and Prognosys are deploying a portfolio enforcement strategy — not a single-patent bet. Competitors and new entrants in spatial biology should map their products against all five asserted patents, not just the lead claim.
With-prejudice exit leaves the door open for portfolio assertion against others
The dismissal with prejudice closes claims only against Curio Bioscience. The five patents — US10480022B2, US11761030B2, US11549138B2, US11001879B1, and US10662468B2 — remain fully enforceable. Companies offering spatial transcriptomics kits or bioinformatics pipelines outside this settlement should treat the portfolio as an active enforcement risk.
10X v Curio — key questions answered
10X Genomics and Prognosys Biosciences asserted five patents: US10480022B2, US11761030B2, US11549138B2, US11001879B1, and US10662468B2. All five cover spatial transcriptomics methods and compositions. The accused products were the Curio Seeker 10x10 kit, Curio Seeker 3x3 kit, Curio Seeker Kit, and the Curio Seeker bioinformatics pipeline.
The case was dismissed. The recorded Basis of Termination is 'Case Dismissed.' The docket order reflects a stipulation under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) to dismiss all claims and counterclaims with prejudice, with each party bearing its own costs, expenses, and attorneys' fees. The specific terms, if any, motivating the parties' agreement are not disclosed in the available public record.
The five asserted patents — US10480022B2, US11761030B2, US11549138B2, US11001879B1, and US10662468B2 — remain in force. The dismissal with prejudice bars 10X Genomics and Prognosys from reasserting these specific claims against Curio Bioscience only. Third parties are not covered by this dismissal and remain subject to potential enforcement action.
Prognosys Biosciences appeared as a co-plaintiff alongside 10X Genomics, suggesting that one or more of the five asserted patents may be jointly owned, licensed, or subject to an arrangement requiring Prognosys to be joined as a party to assert standing. The precise ownership and licensing structure across the five patents is not disclosed in the available public record.
Yes, based on this case. The five asserted patents cover core spatial transcriptomics methods including barcoded capture arrays and associated bioinformatics pipelines. 10X Genomics and Prognosys demonstrated willingness to pursue multi-patent enforcement over a 934-day period. Companies commercialising spatially-resolved transcriptomics kits, substrates, or analysis tools should conduct a targeted FTO review encompassing all five asserted patent families and monitor pending continuations.
This page is compiled from public court dockets and third-party patent and litigation data via PatSnap Eureka, and is provided for general informational purposes only. The information shown — including party names, patent and application numbers, dates, case status, outcomes, and any analysis — may be incomplete, may not reflect the most recent filings or legal status, and may contain errors or omissions. Verify all details against official court records (for example, PACER) and the relevant patent office before relying on them.
Nothing on this page constitutes legal advice or a legal opinion on the validity, infringement, enforceability, or scope of any patent or case, and no attorney‑client relationship is created by its use. Any description of an outcome (such as a dismissal, settlement, or consent judgment) is a general summary, not a legal determination. All patents, trademarks, and company or law‑firm names are the property of their respective owners. PatSnap makes no warranty as to the accuracy or completeness of this content and disclaims, to the fullest extent permitted by law, all liability for reliance on it. For advice on a specific matter, consult qualified legal counsel.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.