UPC_CFI_029/2026; UPC_CFI_1934/2026; UPC_CFI_1940/2026 – 2seventy Bio v Johnson & Johnson

Court
Local Division Brussels
Date
Outcome
Denied
Sector
Pharma/Bio
Decision Type
PROCEDURAL

Expert Commentary

Bifurcation Facts 1. This decision concerns an infringement case in which the defendants have filed a counterclaim for revocation. 2. After hearing the parties, the Court had to decide whether or not to bifurcate. The Judge-Rapporteur (“JR”) The JR stated that the Local Division wanted to decide on both the infringement and the revocation in the same proceedings, citing the advantage of this approach. The JR gave the parties the opportunity to react, and if no response was received before 12 June 2026, the Court would assume that there were no objections. Comment Indeed, this whole bifurcation possibility in the UPCA is a political compromise, as (among some others) Germany has such a (national) system. In the UPC, it is customary not to use that option because of the advantages of dealing with both issues in the same case (efficiency, same claim interpretation in both cases, no unjustified injunctions because the patent is later held to be invalid etc.).

Full Decision Text

Brussels - Local Division UPC CFI 029/2026 UPC CFI 1934/2026 UPC CFI 1940/2026 Procedural Order (R.37 RoP) (I) of the Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court Issued on 8 June 2026 Concerning EP 3 689 383 CLAIMANT 2SEVENTY BIO, INC. Represented by: Mr. Thomas Wolter Mr. Eliot Ward Mr. Matthew Naylor All above representatives with the following address: Mewburn Ellis LLP, 8 Bishopsgate London, EC2N 4BQ, United Kingdom Additional Representatives: Mrs. Amy Crouch, Mrs. Camilla Balleny, Mr. Sean Jauss, Mr. Alex Galbraith, Mrs. Anja Koller, Mr. Lauren Woolley and Mr. Liam Batty Electronic address for servicing: Mewburn-BMS-BCMA@mewburn.com Hereafter referred to as: Claimant or Applicant DEFENDANTS (1) JOHNSON & JOHNSON (**) (2) JANSSEN BIOTECH, INC. (*) (3) JANSSEN PHARMACEUTICALS INC. (**) (4) JANSSEN-CILAG INTERNATIONAL NV (**) (5) JANSSEN PHARMACEUTICA NV (**) (6) JANSSEN-CILAG NV (*) (7) JANSSEN BIOLOGICS B.V. (**) (8) JANSSEN-CILAG B.V. (**) (9) JANSSEN-CILAG GMBH (*) (10) JANSSEN-CILAG SAS (*) (11) JANSSEN-CILAG SPA (*) (12) JANSSEN-CILAG A/S (*) (13) JANSSEN-CILAG AKTIEBOLAG (*) (14) JANSSEN-CILAG FARMACEUTICA LDA. (*) Represented by (*) or (**): (*) Mrs. Pauline Debré, Linklaters, 25 rue de Marignan, 75008 Paris, France (**) Mr. Daan de Lange, Brinkhof, Grote Bickersstraat 74-78, 1013 KS Amsterdam, The Netherlands Electronic Address for servicing: pauline.debre@linklaters.com daan.delange@brinkhof.com (15) LEGEND BIOTECH CORPORATION (16) LEGEND BIOTECH USA INC. (17) LEGEND BIOTECH IRELAND LIMITED; AND (18) LEGEND BIOTECH BELGIUM BV Represented by Mr. Andreas Obermeier Mrs. Annika Lückemann UPC CFI 029/2026 – UPC CFI 1934/2026 UPC CFI 1940/2026 Mr. Domien Op de Beeck All above representatives with the following address: Bird & Bird LLP Maximiliansplatz 32, 80333 Munich, Germany Electronic Address for servicing Andreas.obermeier@twobirds.com Hereafter referred to as: • Cumulatively as “Defendants”; • Separate as “Defendant” followed by “1 through 18” (whichever is applicable); or • Grouped as “Defendants 1-14” and “Defendants 15-18” INTERVENER THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, INCLUDING THE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, OFFICE OF TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER Represented by: Mr. Vittorio Cerulli Irelli (vcerulliirelli@trevisancuonzo.com) Mr. Lorenzo Battarino (lbattarino@trevisancuonzo.com) both Trevisan & Cuonzo, Via Brera, 6, 20121 Milan, Italy Mr. Silvia Bertuccio (silvia.bertuccio@tcbm.eu), TCBM, Via Plinio 63, 20129 Milan, Italy. Electronic address for servicing: vcerulliirelli@trevisancuonzo.com lbattarino@trevisancuonzo.com silvia.bertuccio@tcbm.eu Hereafter referred to as: Intervener PATENT AT ISSUE Number Proprietor(s) EP 3 689 383 The United States of America, as represented by the Secretary, Department of Health and Human Services LANGUAGE OF THE PROCEEDINGS: English SUBJECT MATTER: R. 37.2 RoP, Art. 33 (3) UPCA; R. 158 RoP PANEL - LOCAL DIVISION LD Brussels Presiding Judge / Judge-Rapporteur: Samuel Granata Legally Qualified Judge: Marije Knijff Legally Qualified Judge: Anna Lena Klein Technically Qualified Judge: N/A DECIDING JUDGES: Order issued by Samuel Granata (Judge Rapporteur) UPC CFI 029/2026 – UPC CFI 1934/2026 UPC CFI 1940/2026 ORDER Pursuant to R. 37.2 RoP, the LD Brussels intends to take a decision on the question of how to proceed with regard to Art. 33(3) UPCA within the meaning of Art. 33(3)(a) UPCA before the end of the written procedure. According to R. 37.2 RoP, the panel may take an earlier decision by order, provided that it considers the party´s pleadings and gives them the opportunity to be heard. In the present case, the LD Brussels intends to exercise its discretion hear both the infringement action (UPC CFI 029/2026) and the counterclaim for revocation (UPC CFI 1934/2026 and UPC CFI 1940/2026) in application of Art. 33(3)(a) UPCA). Such a joint hearing of the infringement action and the counterclaim seems to be appropriate in particular for reasons of efficiency. It is also preferable because it allows both issues – validity and infringement–to be decided on the basis of a uniform interpretation of the patent by the same panel composed of the same judges. An early decision will enable the parties and the Court to manage the case accordingly. The parties are given the opportunity to comment on the intended course of action until 12 June 2026 (6PM CEST). If the Court does not receive comments by the aforementioned date, this will be considered an agreement to hold a joint hearing. Issued on 8 June 2026 by Samuel Granata (Judge-Rapporteur) Samuel GRANATA Judge-Rapporteur Legally Qualified Judge

Key Holdings

  • The UPC generally prefers to hear infringement and revocation together in the same proceedings for efficiency and consistent claim interpretation.
  • Bifurcation, while a political compromise in the UPCA, is typically not utilized in the UPC due to the advantages of combined proceedings.
  • The Judge-Rapporteur indicated the Local Division's preference for a unified proceeding, allowing parties to object to this approach.
  • Advantages of combined proceedings include avoiding unjustified injunctions if a patent is later found invalid.

Tags

  • Bifurcation
  • Infringement
  • Revocation
  • Procedure
  • Case Management

Related Cases

View original decision