1. Key takeaways
International jurisdiction by anchor defendant.
Pursuant to Art. 8(1) Brussels ibis Regulation (BR), a person domiciled in an EU Member State may also be sued, where he is one of a number of defendants, in the courts for the place where one of them is domiciled.
In the present case, the judge rapporteur held it sufficiently substantiated that the Dutch defendant has a central role in the sales activities of the group of companies and successfully offered to supply and sold the attacked embodiments in the past in 17 European countries.
To establish the close connection under Art. 8(1) BR, the judge rapporteur considered relevant: a marketing authorization for the attacked embodiment and the responsibility for the batch release as well as indications on the company website regarding plans for expansion. With regard to a Norwegian defendant, in view of the intertwined activities of the defendants' group of companies, it sufficed that a threat of infringement could not be excluded although concrete information on activities outside of Norway was lacking.
International jurisdiction for contracting parties to Lugano Convention.
The jurisdiction rules of the Brussels ibis Regulation (BR) that apply to the UPC, also apply to the assessment of jurisdiction of the UPC in proceedings concerning persons domiciled in Contracting Parties of the Lugano Convention such as Norway. The Lugano Convention has in Art. 5(3) and Art. 6(1) provisions that correspond to Art. 7(2) BR and Art. 8(1) BR. The judge rapporteur notes that this aspect was not discussed by the parties.
Local jurisdiction: commercial relationship.
The term "a commercial relationship" under Art. 33.1 (b) UPCA should not be interpreted too narrowly. The fact of belonging to the same group (of legal entities) and having related commercial activities aimed at the same purpose (such as R&D, manufacturing, sale and distribution of the same products) is sufficient.
No reason to align deadlines for fifteen defendants.
Preliminary Objections are generally particular for each defendant and therefore there is no reason to align the deadlines for fifteen defendants.
2. Division
The Hague
3. UPC number
UPC_CFI_191/2025, UPC_CFI_192/2025
4. Parties
Moderna Inc. and other group companies; Genevant Sciences GmbH, Arbutus Biopharma Corporation
5. Patent(s)
EP2279254, EP4241767
6. Body of legislation / Rules
Rule 19 RoP, Art. 33 UPCA, Art. 7 (2), Art. 8 (1) Brussels ibis Regulation, Art. 5 (3), Art. 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.
