UPC_CFI_29/2026; UPC_CFI_1934/2026; UPC_CFI_1940/2026 – 2seventy bio Inc v Johnson & Johnson

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

Expert Commentary

Publication of orders This order was first published on 8 June 2026 but it disappeared from the published decisions after a few hours. However, before it disappeared we had read it and we published it with comments in the Unfiltered of week 24. Now the order has reappeared with a new date. Question 1: Is it possible to withdraw orders and to give them a new date without any explanation? Question 2: Do we really have to publish this kind of order? For the past three years we have seen a rather erratic way of publishing with decisions being published long after they were announced, but still published among decisions of the same date. I have suggested several times to change this policy and to at least make it clear every week what is published late, but that has not rendered effect so far. We now use a software script to track late-published decisions, to ensure that we do not miss an order or decision. If you do not want to miss a late publication, you can either read or listen to “Unfiltered”, or you can scroll through the decisions of the last months every week to see if a new decision has been published late.

Full Decision Text

Brussels - Local Division UPC_CFI_029/2026 UPC_CFI_1934/2026 UPC_CFI_1940/2026 Procedural Order (R. 37 RoP) of the Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court issued on 15 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 serving: 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 Debre, 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 serving: 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 Lickemann, Mr Domien Op de Beeck All above representatives with the following address: Bird & Bird LLP, Maximiliansplatz 22, 80333 Munich, Germany Electronic address for serving: 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 (vcerulli.irelli@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 serving: vcerulli.irelli@trevisancuonzo.com; lbattarino@trevisancuonzo.com; silvia.bertuccio@tcbm.eu Hereafter referred to as: Intervener PATENT AT ISSUE Number: EP 3 689 383 Proprietor(s): 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) 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 the panel UPC_CFI_029/2026 - UPC_CFI_1934/2026 - UPC_CFI_1940/2026 GROUNDS OF THE ORDER 1. The Claimant introduced its Statement of Claim and the Defendants a Statement of Defence including a Counterclaim for Revocation. 2. The Court has given the parties the opportunity to comment on the to be issued R. 37 RoP order by Order (R.) dated 8 June 2026. Parties did not raise any objections in their respective communication dated 12 June 2026. 3. In application of Art. 33(3)(a) UPCA the Court decides to proceed with both the infringement and with the counterclaim for revocation. In application of R. 37.1 RoP the Court reasons that joint proceedings allow the parties to coordinate their arguments regarding the respective claims. Furthermore, it also ensures a uniform interpretation of the relevant patent in suit by the same panel, which promotes legal certainty. ORDER I. With the consent of the parties, the Local Division Brussels (UPC) will hear both the infringement action (UPC_CFI_029/2026) and the counterclaim for revocation (UPC_CFI_1934/2026 and UPC_CFI_1940/2026) (R. 37.2 RoP). II. The Judge-Rapporteur shall request the President of the Court of First Instance to allocate to the panel a technically qualified judge with appropriate qualifications and experience in the field of technology related to the patent in suit (R. 37.3 RoP). Issued on 15 June 2026 by the panel Samuel GRANATA Presiding Judge / Judge-Rapporteur Legally Qualified Judge Digitally signed by Samuel Rocco M Granata Date: 2026-06-15 15:14:41 +0200 Marije KNIJFF Legally Qualified Judge Digitally signed by Marije Knijff Date: 2026-06-15 11:26:28 +0200 Anna Lena KLEIN Legally Qualified Judge Digitally signed by ANNA-LENA KLEIN Date: 2026-06-15 15:09:21 +0200 Information on Appeal: Application of R. 220.2 RoP

Key Holdings

  • UPC orders may be withdrawn and republished with new dates without explicit explanation.
  • Questions are raised regarding the necessity and transparency of publishing certain procedural orders.
  • The UPC's publication policy has been inconsistent, with decisions appearing late or disappearing and reappearing.
  • Tracking mechanisms are necessary to monitor and identify late-published UPC decisions.

Tags

  • Procedural Order
  • Publication Policy
  • Transparency
  • Case Management
  • Rules of Procedure

Related Cases

View original decision