2seventy bio v Johnson & Johnson (CFI, UPC_CFI_29/2026, 15 June 2026)

Date	15 June 2026
Court	CFI
Division	Brussels (BE) Local Division
Type of action	Infringement Action
Case number(s)	UPC_CFI_29/2026
Registry reference	UPC-CFI-29/2026
Parties	2seventy bio, Inc. v. Johnson & Johnson, Janssen Biotech, Inc., Janssen Pharmaceuticals Inc., Janssen-Cilag International NV, Janssen Pharmace…

Summary pending review. Official UPC registry metadata imported on 24 September 2026.

Official decision (PDF) · UPC registry entry

Case timeline

23 September 2026 : 2seventy bio v Johnson & Johnson (CFI, 23 September 2026) UPC-CFI-0000029/2026

Dhenne Avocats represents claimants and defendants in European patent disputes before the Unified Patent Court, including the Paris divisions.

Contact the firm

English summary awaiting review. Read the French case note.

Source and translations

Official source: Unified Patent Court registry link recorded in the record
Original language: not recorded
Translation available: no translation recorded the firm’s French record is a summary, not a translation
Date checked: not recorded

Only the official text is authoritative. A machine translation is never presented as official, republishing a third-party document requires a verified basis in rights, and a link to the source is preferred.

Follow this case

Proceedings, related decisions, appeals, parties and patents as recorded in the registry and in the Dhenne Avocats corpus. Each link states its source.

Proceedings

UPC_CFI_29/2026 official number

Follow this case

Parties

claimant2seventy bio, Inc.4 decisions in the corpus Follow this party
defendantJohnson & Johnson4 decisions in the corpus Follow this party
defendantJanssen Biotech, Inc.5 decisions in the corpus Follow this party
defendantJanssen Pharmaceuticals Inc.4 decisions in the corpus Follow this party
defendantJanssen-Cilag International NV4 decisions in the corpus Follow this party
defendantJanssen Pharmace4 decisions in the corpus Follow this party

Exact name as it appears in the record, group affiliation only where sourced and dated.

Decisions in the same proceedings and documented appeals

15 June 2026 2seventy bio v Johnson & Johnson (CFI, UPC_CFI_29/2026, 15 June 2026) Infringement Action · UPC_CFI_29/2026
23 September 2026 2seventy bio v Johnson & Johnson (CFI, 23 September 2026) Infringement Action · UPC_CFI_29/2026
In this CAR-T life sciences infringement action, the Brussels Local Division dismissed the defendants' Rule 190 RoP applications for production of evidence directed at documents of the NIH (laboratory notebooks, invention reports, grant files, notice records), rejected the NIH's request to be reclassified from interven…

What the record states

Nature of the act: Infringement Action
Outcome (Dhenne Avocats summary): Avec l'accord des parties, la division locale de Bruxelles instruit ensemble l'action en contrefaçon et les demandes reconventionnelles en nullité, et un juge technicien sera demandé.
Appeal: No appeal documented in the corpus, this does not mean that no appeal was lodged.
Instance: First-instance decision, whether it has become final is not recorded.

Patents mentioned

EP 3 689 383 mentioned in: Dhenne Avocats analysis Follow this patent

Related decisions cited in the analyses

2seventy bio v Johnson & Johnson (CFI, 23 September 2026) cited in this record
2seventy bio v Johnson & Johnson (CFI, UPC_CFI_1934/2026, 15 June 2026) cites this decision
2seventy bio v Johnson & Johnson (CFI, UPC_CFI_1940/2026, 15 June 2026) cites this decision

Scope: Dhenne Avocats corpus. Registry-based links are marked “official number”; links derived from the analyses are marked as such. An erroneous link can be withdrawn without deleting any record.

Patents and standards

Publication	Role in the dispute	Family	Standard and declaration	Pool	Sources
`EP 3 689 383`	Mentioned in the analysis (role not qualified) Also mentioned in 2 other decision(s): Ter Meer Steinmeister & Partner Patentanwälte mbB v 2seventy bio (CFI, · 2seventy bio v Johnson & Johnson (CFI, 8 June 2026)	not recorded	not recorded	not recorded	Espacenet links not checked mentioned in: Dhenne Avocats analysis

The statuses “asserted in litigation”, “declared essential”, “listed by a pool” and “essentiality examined by a court” are distinct and may coexist. Validity, infringement and technical essentiality are different questions. Scope: patents cited in the decisions of the Dhenne Avocats corpus, with no essentiality score or prediction.

Receive an alert

Weekly summary of new records and substantive updates matching what you follow. Address confirmed by email, unsubscribe at any time, one email per week even where several of your follows match.