[Edaily Reporter Kim Seung-kwon ] Waters (formerly BD Biosciences, Becton Dickinson), the world’s leading provider of flow cytometry solutions, is launching a new pretreatment device that washes cells without centrifugation.

This has raised suspicions that the company may have utilized technology from the domestic bio-equipment firm Curiox Biosystems Co., Ltd.(445680)(hereinafter “Curiox”). These allegations stem from claims that the two companies signed a non-disclosure agreement (NDA) last year and discussed OEM (original equipment manufacturer) cooperation. Curiox is reportedly preparing legal action regarding patent infringement.

From Signing an NDA to Demos and Prototypes… A Strikingly Similar New Product After Contact Was Cut Off

According to industry sources on the 19th, Waters will hold a webinar on the 13th of next month (U.S. Pacific Time) to introduce the “BD FACS360 Sample Preparation System” for the first time. According to the company’s product page, this device automates cell washing without centrifugation, antibody cocktail preparation, intracellular and extracellular staining, and fixation and permeabilization processes into a single workflow. It also features “Experiment Planner,” software that allows users to set up experimental protocols by following on-screen instructions without coding.

This configuration overlaps significantly with Curiox’s flagship product, the “Pluto Workstation.” Curiox has long promoted its proprietary “C-FREE” technology for centrifuge-free cell washing. At the CYTO 2026 conference in the U.S. last June, the company unveiled its Antibody Cocktailing Wizard and Workflow Wizard. This effectively aligns the three core pillars: centrifuge-free washing, automated cocktailing, and coding-free operation.

According to sources, discussions between the two companies began early last year when BD expressed interest in the Pluto product. Subsequently, the two sides signed a non-disclosure agreement (NDA), which reportedly included clauses prohibiting reverse engineering and unauthorized replication. Curiox conducted equipment demonstrations and employee training at BD’s facilities between July and August of last year. Sources indicate that, at BD’s request, Curiox provided prototypes of the Workflow Wizard and Antibody Cocktail Wizard in October and November. It is also reported that a term sheet outlining OEM conditions was exchanged. However, communication with BD reportedly ceased almost entirely between late last year and early this year.

These circumstances align with what Curiox has disclosed to investors. In an investor letter last October, Curiox responded to a question about its collaboration model with a flow cytometer company by stating, “Discussions are primarily focused on product sales via an OEM model.” In the same letter, when asked about the progress of joint development with BD, the company stated, “It is difficult to disclose specific details at this stage.”

The FACS360 technical specifications released by Waters were drafted in August of this year, and the promotional flyer was prepared in September. Nowhere is there an explanation of the washing method or the source of the technology. The whistleblower claimed that they could not find any patents filed by BD or Waters, nor any conference presentations, related to non-centrifugal cell washing. However, it typically takes one year and six months from the filing of a patent application to its publication. Some argue that it is difficult to conclude there was no independent development based solely on the absence of publicly available materials.

The disclosed hardware specifications are virtually identical to those of OpenTron’s “Flex,” a general-purpose liquid handler. This raises the possibility that the system consists of a generic robot equipped with the company’s own software. Curiox’s “Pluto Code” software is also a product that implements the C-FREE washing function on liquid handlers from other companies, such as OpenTron.

From

Centrifuge Leader to Non-Centrifuge… Is This a “Crisis” or “Validation” for Curiox

?
Regardless of the suspicions, the market is focusing on Waters’ moves themselves. BD is the company that commercialized the “FACSDuet,” an automated clinical pretreatment device that integrates centrifugation. Yet, in its new research-grade product, this same company has positioned centrifuge-free washing as a core feature. According to Curiox, the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) Flow Cytometry Standardization Consortium identified the automation of sample pretreatment as the “necessary next step” in a preliminary paper published in an academic journal last month. This signals that industry trends are shifting toward non-centrifugal automation.

Curiox has officially responded positively to this development. In an investor letter dated the 15th, the company stated, “Major equipment manufacturers have entered the sample pretreatment automation market,” adding, “These major players are making it clear to customers that automation is essential, which in turn accelerates our sales growth.” However, the company has taken the position of neither confirming nor denying when asked to name specific companies.

Industry views are mixed. There are concerns that if Curiox, with annual sales of 5.2 billion won, competes in the same market as the top player with a global sales network, the premium associated with being the “sole provider of automation technology” could weaken. On the other hand, Curiox was the only company to provide an automation solution in the second NIST study. Some also believe that once the standardized data is released, it will present an opportunity to prove its technological superiority.

Ultimately, the dispute boils down to two key issues. First is when and how FACS360’s cleaning technology was developed. Second is whether the information shared during negotiations was used within the scope permitted by the NDA. Industry attention is now focused on how much of the cleaning principle Waters will disclose during next month’s webinar and whether Curiox will actually take legal action.

An official from the biotech materials and components industry explained, “Even if a small or medium-sized enterprise considers something to be its proprietary technology, the other party may deem it to be information that has already been made public,” adding, “Since litigation can determine the fate of a company, caution is essential.”