1. Key takeaways
The scope of a review under R. 333 RoP is marginal and limited to the reasoned grounds submitted by the applicant
When reviewing a Judge-Rapporteur's order, the full panel will not re-examine the entire decision but will confine its assessment to the specific, substantiated grounds for review raised by the applicant. Issues not challenged in the review application are considered confirmed.
UPC has jurisdiction over co-defendants in EU/Lugano states if claims are connected to an anchor defendant, even if their infringement occurs outside UPC territory (Art. 8(1) BR)
The court affirmed jurisdiction over defendants in Spain (EU) and Norway (Lugano) based on their connection to the anchor defendant in the Netherlands. The key is the connection between claims to avoid irreconcilable judgments, not the location of the co-defendant's infringing act.
To establish jurisdiction at the preliminary stage (R. 19 RoP), a claimant only needs to make a "plausible" allegation of infringement, a considerably lower threshold than for the merits
The court clarified that for the purpose of establishing jurisdiction, it is sufficient for the claimant to substantiate its allegations in a way that makes infringement plausible. The full examination of whether the acts constitute infringement is reserved for the main proceedings.
Holding and using a Marketing Authorisation to enable group-wide sales can plausibly constitute infringement sufficient to establish jurisdiction
The claimant plausibly argued that the defendant did not merely "hold" the Marketing Authorisation but actively used it to market the product. This could be direct infringement or, alternatively, facilitating infringement for which the UPC has competence.
2. Division
Local Division The Hague
3. UPC number
UPC_CFI_191/2025, UPC_CFI_192/2025
4. Type of proceedings
Infringement Action / Review of a Procedural Order on a Preliminary Objection
5. Parties
Claimants (Respondents in the review): Genevant Sciences GmbH and Arbutus Biopharma Corporation
Defendants (Applicants in the review): Fifteen entities of the Moderna group, including Moderna, Inc., ModernaTX, Inc., and various European subsidiaries
6. Patents
EP 2279254 and EP4241767
7. Jurisdictions
UPC, Spain (via Brussels I Regulation), Norway (via Lugano Convention)
8. Body of legislation / Rules
Rule 19 RoP
Rule 333 RoP
Art. 7(2), 8(1) Brussels I Regulation (recast)
Art. 5(3), 6(1) Lugano Convention
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
