Opens in a new tab

Genevant Sciences v Moderna (CFI, 13 August 2025)

Date13 August 2025
CourtCFI
DivisionThe Hague (NL) Local Division
Type of actionGeneric application
Registry referenceApp_34218/2025 · ORD_34254/2025
PartiesArbutus Biopharma Corporation

Official decision (PDF) · UPC registry entry

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

Contact the firm

Dhenne Avocats · 10 October 2026

Our analysis

Summary

By procedural order of 13 August 2025 (UPC_CFI_191/2025, App_34218/2025 and App_34202/2025), the judge rapporteur of The Hague Local Division partly granted the applications by Genevant Sciences and Arbutus Biopharma for an extension of time in their action for infringement of EP 2 279 254 against fifteen Moderna group companies, which have counterclaimed for revocation. The time limit for the Reply and the Defence to the counterclaim was extended to 24 September 2025, rather than 4 October as requested. The order fixes the starting point of the period where access to confidential material was delayed.

Question

Does delayed access to the defendant’s confidential pleadings justify extending the time limit for the Reply and, if so, from what date?

Decision

The power to extend a time limit under Rule 9.3(a) RoP is construed narrowly: an extension requires exceptional circumstances and is limited to the additional time needed, after weighing the right to a fair hearing against the efficiency of the proceedings (paragraphs 18 and 19). The judge took as the starting point of the two-month period the upload of the confidentiality club agreement on 24 July 2025. He refused to go further: the defendants’ own request for an extension of their defence had largely been refused, the corrected counterclaim was served on 15 July, the claimants had the redacted versions, the confidential part was minor, their representatives had access from 17 and 18 July and the interim conferences in February and May 2026 would have been affected (paragraph 21).

Key points for practice

Provisions applied

Rules of Procedure
Rules 9.3(a), 29(a), 262A and 333
Case law cited
Roche Diabetes Care, Paris Central Division, 20 February 2024 (UPC_CFI_454/2023), Munich Local Division, 9 April 2024 (UPC_CFI_501/2023), Düsseldorf Local Division, 20 April 2024 (UPC_CFI_355/2023), Paris Central Division, 17 September 2024 (UPC_CFI_189/2024), Mannheim Local Division, 16 July 2025 (UPC_CFI_750/2024), Avago International Sales v Tesla, Hamburg Local Division, 28 November 2023 and 5 December 2023 (UPC_CFI_54/2023), Düsseldorf Local Division, 24 June 2024 (UPC_CFI_456/2023), Mannheim Local Division, 9 September 2024 (UPC_CFI_219/2023 and 223/2023), Düsseldorf Local Division, 23 February 2024 (UPC_CFI_463/2023)

Related decisions

Prepared by Dhenne Avocats from the official decision, consulted on 10 October 2026. The database is updated every week, on Friday. Only the official text is authoritative.


Going further

Lexicon: Supplementary protection certificate (SPC), Biosimilar medicinal product, Launch at risk.

Dhenne Avocats blog: Pharmaceutical patents and the UPC: is the Court hostile to them?.

Publications by Matthieu Dhenne: The Launch Letter: How Generics and Biosimilars Should Write to Avoid UPC Urgency (Kluwer Patent Blog).

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

No case number recorded in this record.

Parties

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

Decisions in the same proceedings and documented appeals

No other decision in the corpus bears the same case number, and no appeal is documented in the corpus to date.

What the record states

Nature of the act
Generic application
Outcome (Dhenne Avocats summary)
La demande est partiellement rejetée : le délai de la réplique et de la défense à la demande reconventionnelle est fixé au 24 septembre 2025, deux mois après le dépôt de l'accord de cercle de confidentialité.
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

Related decisions cited in the analyses

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

PublicationRole in the disputeFamilyStandard and declarationPoolSources
EP 2 279 254
Novel lipid formulations for nucleic acid delivery
recorded proprietor: Arbutus Biopharma Corp
Mentioned in the analysis (role not qualified)
Also mentioned in 7 other decision(s): Genevant Sciences v Moderna (CFI, UPC_CFI_191/2025, 25 August 2026) · Genevant Sciences v Moderna (CFI, 18 August 2025) · Genevant Sciences v Moderna (CFI, 4 August 2025) · Genevant Sciences v Moderna (CFI, 12 June 2025) · Moderna v Genevant Sciences (CFI, 4 June 2025) · Genevant Sciences v Moderna (CFI, 23 May 2025) · Genevant Sciences v Moderna (CFI, 17 April 2025)
not recordednot recordednot recordedEspacenet · European Patent Register
existence and title of the publication checked on 30 October 2026 (Google Patents, Espacenet and Register links are not checked automatically)
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.

Follow

Weekly summary, on Fridays.