2026-06-15 - LD Brussels - 2seventy bio, Inc. v. 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 SAS, 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 - UPC-CFI-0001934/2026
- Aktenzeichen:
- UPC-CFI-0001934/2026
- Datum:
- Spruchkörper:
- Court of First Instance - Brussels (BE) Local Division
- Art:
- Order
- Parteien:
- 2seventy bio, Inc. v. 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 SAS, 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
Kernaussage: In a procedural order under R.
2026-06-15 - LD Brussels - 2seventy bio, Inc.
v.
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 SAS, 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 - UPC-CFI-0001934/2026
routine
In a procedural order under R. 37.2 RoP, the Brussels Local Division (Judge-Rapporteur Granata) announced its intention, before the end of the written procedure, to exercise its discretion under Art. 33(3)(a) UPCA to hear the infringement action (UPC_CFI_029/2026) and the counterclaims for revocation (UPC_CFI_1934/2026 and UPC_CFI_1940/2026) concerning EP 3 689 383 jointly before the same panel, rather than bifurcate. The Court considered a joint hearing appropriate in particular for reasons of efficiency, and preferable because it allows both validity and infringement to be decided on the basis of a uniform interpretation of the patent by the same judges. The parties were given until 12 June 2026 to comment, with silence to be treated as agreement to a joint hearing. (This database node duplicates the same order, which is also recorded at nodes 183487 and 183486.)