Executive Summary
This UPC Procedural Order addressed preliminary objections raised by the Moderna group against Arbutus Biopharma Corporation's infringement claims concerning two biotech patents (EP2279254 and EP4241767). Moderna challenged the Court's jurisdiction, particularly regarding long-arm jurisdiction for various international subsidiaries. The Hague Local Division largely rejected these objections, confirming its competence to hear the case. This ruling is significant as it clears a major procedural hurdle, allowing the substantive infringement claims to move forward.
What the Court Held — Ratio Decidendi
The Court found that the patent was validly opted-out and subsequently withdrawn, thus confirming the UPC's jurisdiction over the relevant patents despite challenges based on national registry entries. The preliminary objections regarding the court's competence were dismissed on all other counts, clearing the path for the main infringement claims.
Practitioner Note
This decision partially_granted relief to the petitioner. If you are facing a similar patent dispute before The Hague (NL) Local Division, this precedent supports interim or final relief where the facts are comparable. The ratio regarding the applied tests is particularly relevant for strategy.
Related Cases
Occlutech GmbHvsLepu Medical (Europa) Cooperatief U.A. a.o.
In this UPC case concerning an infringement action involving EP 1 998 686 B2, the court addressed a motion regarding the protection of confidential information. The Lokalkammer Düsseldorf granted the request to classify specific data as trade secrets under Art. 58 EPGÜ and R. 262A VerfO. Crucially, the court ruled that the claimant's CEO must be granted access to this sensitive information, despite objections from the defendants who feared competitive disadvantage.
Sun Patent TrustvsShenzhen Transsion Holdings Co, Ltd
In a procedural ruling from the Mannheim Local Court, Sun Patent Trust withdrew its infringement claim against multiple defendants, including Shenzhen Transsion Holdings. The parties reached an agreement regarding the termination of the case and cost allocation. While the core dispute was dropped, the court confirmed the withdrawal and ordered a partial refund of the initial court fees to the claimant.
ZTE CorporationvsSamsung Electronics Italia S.p.A, Samsung Electronics France, Samsung Electronics GmbH, Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., Samsung Electronics Benelux B.V., Samsung Electronics Romania S.R.L.
This UPC decision addresses a critical procedural issue concerning the valuation of cases involving Standard Essential Patents (SEPs) and FRAND counterclaims. The Court ruled that a FRAND counterclaim significantly expands the scope and value in dispute beyond the initial infringement action, distinguishing it from a simple defense or a revocation counterclaim. This ruling clarifies that SEPs litigation can involve complex valuations based on licensing terms, even if those fees exceed standard infringement claim values.
ITCiCo Spain S.L.vsBayerische Motoren Werke Aktiengesellschaft
This UPC decision addresses a cost application filed by Bayerische Motoren Werke Aktiengesellschaft following a revocation action that resulted in a default judgment against them. The court ruled that the procedural step of seeking to set aside the default judgment is an internal remedy and cannot independently generate a costs award. Instead, the costs associated with this specific procedural challenge must be integrated into the cost assessment of the main proceedings (the original revocation action). This ruling clarifies the scope of cost claims in UPC procedures involving interlocutory remedies.
JingAo Solar Co., Ltd.vsChint New Energy Technology Co., Ltd.; Astronergy Europe GmbH; Astronergy GmbH; Astronergy Solarmodule GmbH; Astronergy Solar Netherlands B.V.; Chint Solar Netherlands B.V.
This UPC Court of Appeal decision addresses a request for security for costs in an infringement action concerning solar cell technology. The court ultimately granted the application, requiring the claimant (JingAo) to provide a deposit of € 200,000. The ruling emphasizes that while enforcement difficulties exist in non-EU jurisdictions like China, these do not automatically defeat the need for security; rather, the applicant must demonstrate legitimate concerns regarding enforceability.
Dealing with a patent challenge?
Whether it's a Section 3(d) rejection, a post-grant opposition, or a FRAND dispute, Arctic's patent litigation team has handled it. Get a strategy call.
Disclaimer: This page contains an automated summary based on publicly available judicial records. The content is generated for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Always verify details against the original source judgment before relying on this information for any legal purpose. If you believe any information is inaccurate, please contact us.