Genevant Sciences v Moderna (CFI, 18 August 2025)

Dhenne Avocats · 10 October 2026

Our analysis

Summary

By an order of 18 August 2025 (UPC_CFI_191/2025 and UPC_CFI_192/2025, joined proceedings, ORD_34976/2025), The Hague Local Division (Judges Brinkman, Granata and Kokke), on a review application under Rule 333, upheld the judge-rapporteur’s order of 23 May 2025, as rectified on 4 June 2025, on Moderna’s preliminary objections in the infringement actions brought by Genevant Sciences and Arbutus Biopharma concerning EP 2 279 254 and EP 4 241 767. The review concerned international jurisdiction over Moderna Spain and Moderna Norway, founded on their connection with Moderna Netherlands.

Question

Does the UPC have jurisdiction over subsidiaries based in Spain and Norway under Art. 8(1) of Regulation No 1215/2012 and Art. 6(1) of the Lugano Convention?

Decision

Yes. Review under Rule 333 is marginal (paragraph 15). The UPC, as a common court within the meaning of Art. 71a of the Regulation, has jurisdiction where a court of a Contracting Member State would (paragraph 18). At the jurisdiction stage, whether there is infringement is a matter for the merits and the plausibility threshold is lower (paragraph 21). The claimants sufficiently alleged connected infringement with Moderna Netherlands, and Art. 8 does not require the infringement to occur within UPC territory (paragraph 22), holding and using a marketing authorisation and batch release may amount to or contribute to infringement (paragraphs 25 to 27). Leave to appeal was refused.

Key points for practice

• In multinational pharmaceutical litigation, a connection with a subsidiary based in a Contracting Member State allows group companies based in Spain or Norway to be sued before the UPC.

Provisions applied

Agreement on a Unified Patent Court

Arts 32(1)(a), 33(1) and 63

Rules of Procedure

Rules 19, 333 and 353

Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012

Arts 4, 7(2), 8(1), 71a and 71b

Other provisions

Lugano Convention of 30 October 2007, Arts 5(3) and 6(1)

Case law cited

Netgear v Huawei, Court of Appeal, 21 March 2024, Mammut Sports Group v Ortovox Sportartikel, Court of Appeal, 25 September 2024, SharkNinja Germany, Court of Appeal, 9 October 2024, OrthoApnea S.L, Brussels Local Division, 19 July 2024 (UPC_CFI_376/2023)

Related decisions

• Arbutus Biopharma v Moderna Biotech UK, 23 May 2025, judge-rapporteur’s order on the preliminary objections.

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.