2026-06-08 - LD Brussels - 2seventy bio v. Janssen-Cilag et al. - UPC-CFI-0001940/2026

Aktenzeichen:
UPC-CFI-0001940/2026
Datum:
Spruchkörper:
Court of First Instance - Brussels (BE) Local Division
Art:
Order
Parteien:
2seventy bio, Inc. v. Johnson & Johnson, Janssen (Biotech / Pharmaceuticals / Cilag entities) and Legend Biotech (Corporation / USA / Ireland / Belgium); intervener and patent proprietor: The United States of America (Department of Health and Human Services)

Kernaussage: In a procedural order under R.

2026-06-08 - LD Brussels - 2seventy bio v. Janssen-Cilag et al. - UPC-CFI-0001940/2026
Eine Entscheidung, mehrere Aktenzeichen

Das Gericht hat diese Verfahren zusammen entschieden und dasselbe Dokument in jedem davon eingestellt. Jeder Eintrag unten ist ein eigener vollwertiger Registereintrag.

🏛️Court of First Instance - Brussels (BE) Local Division• Order
📅2026-06-08
🔢UPC-CFI-0001940/2026
Parteien & Vertreter
Kläger / Berufungsführer
2seventy bio, Inc.
Thomas WOLTER
Beklagter / Berufungsbeklagter
Johnson & Johnson
Janssen Biotech, Inc.
Janssen Pharmaceuticals Inc.
Janssen-Cilag International NV
Janssen Pharmaceutica NV
Janssen-Cilag NV
Janssen Biologics B.V.
Janssen-Cilag B.V.
Janssen-Cilag GmbH
Janssen-Cilag
Janssen-Cilag SpA
Janssen-Cilag A/S
Janssen-Cilag Aktiebolag
Janssen-Cilag Farmaceutica Lda.
Legend Biotech Corporation
Legend Biotech USA Inc.
Legend Biotech Ireland Limited
Legend Biotech Belgium BV
Pauline DEBRÉ
Daan Frederik DE LANGE
Andreas OBERMEIER
⚖️Counterclaim for revocation
🌐English

routine
In a procedural order under R. 37.2 RoP, the Brussels Local Division announced its intention to decide, before the close of the written procedure, how to proceed with the counterclaim for revocation under Art. 33(3) UPCA. The panel signalled that it intends to exercise its discretion under Art. 33(3)(a) UPCA to hear the infringement action (UPC_CFI_029/2026) together with the revocation counterclaims (UPC_CFI_1934/2026 and UPC_CFI_1940/2026), rather than referring revocation to the central division. It reasoned that a joint hearing serves procedural efficiency and ensures that validity and infringement are decided on a uniform interpretation of the patent by the same panel composed of the same judges. The parties were given until 12 June 2026 (18:00 CEST) to comment, with silence treated as agreement to a joint hearing. The order disposes of no case on the merits.

Entscheidung teilen

Weitere Navigation
Entscheidungen
Rechtstexte
Analysen

Zu Sammlung hinzufügen

0 Einträge hinzufügen zu:

Anmeldung

Registrieren