On 15 September 2026 the Court of The Hague ordered a stay of two CRISPR‑related patent proceedings. The order establishes that national courts must wait for the European Patent Office’s appellate decision before adjudicating patent validity. The stay bars any injunction, damages or licensing order on the disputed patents for the parties involved. It limits the ability of litigants to pursue parallel national actions while an EPO revocation is under appeal.

Full News Breakdown

The dispute originated when the European Patent Office revoked a European patent covering a CRISPR DNA‑editing technique, prompting the patent owner to lodge an appeal. Opponents sought immediate enforcement in Dutch courts, arguing that the revocation should not impede their infringement claims. The Hague court concluded that its jurisdiction was suspended until the EPO appeal is resolved and therefore stayed the proceedings.

• Case Name: Not publicly designated

• Court: Court of The Hague (Netherlands)

• Date: 15 September 2026

• Citation: No official reporter citation at time of writing

• EU Instruments / UK Legislation Cited: European Patent Convention (EPC)

• Key Provisions: Article 113(1) EPC (right to be heard) and Article 108 EPC (appeal procedure)

• Primary Legal Issue: Whether a national court may adjudicate patent validity while an EPO appeal is pending

• Applicant/Plaintiff Arguments: Revocation should be final for the purpose of national enforcement; infringement claims may proceed independently

• Respondent/Defendant Arguments: Revocation is not final until the appeal is decided; national courts must defer to the EPO appellate process

• Court's Reasoning: The revocation is not a final judicial act; the EPC provides an exclusive appeal mechanism that precludes parallel national adjudication on validity

• Holding: Stay of the two CRISPR patent cases was ordered

• Operative Order: All proceedings in the two cases are stayed pending the outcome of the EPO appeal

• Practical Outcome: No injunctions, damages, or licensing orders can be issued on the disputed CRISPR patents until the EPO decision is rendered

How Does This Affect You?

Before the Hague decision, parties could launch national infringement actions even after an EPO revocation but before the appeal was decided, creating divergent outcomes. The court clarified that national courts lack jurisdiction to rule on validity until the EPO’s appellate decision becomes final. This creates a single, EU‑wide timeline for patent validity, reducing the risk of parallel contradictory rulings and concentrating strategic decisions around the EPO appeal process.

For Lawyers & Advocates

• Re‑evaluate ongoing infringement suits involving patents under EPO appeal and advise clients to suspend enforcement actions until the appellate decision is final.

• Amend docketing systems to flag any national proceedings where the underlying European patent has a pending EPO appeal, ensuring automatic stay checks.

• Draft client letters that cite the Hague ruling as persuasive authority when negotiating settlements, emphasizing the futility of pursuing parallel national actions.

• Prepare appellate briefs for the EPO that now carry heightened strategic weight, because the outcome will dictate the fate of all related national proceedings.

• Advise patent owners to consider filing provisional requests for stay in other jurisdictions, referencing the Dutch court’s reasoning to pre‑empt parallel litigation.

For Law Students

The case illustrates how EU courts respect the exclusive appellate structure of the European Patent Convention, prioritising a unified review over fragmented national adjudication. The core doctrinal distinction lies between a “final judicial act” and a “pending appeal” under Article 108 EPC.

The decision is particularly relevant for the study of:

• Patent enforcement and validity under the EPC

• Conflict of jurisdiction between national courts and the EPO

• Procedural law concerning stays of proceedings

• Comparative patent litigation in the EU member states

• Strategic use of appeal mechanisms in intellectual property disputes

Comparable cases include C‑128/15 Huawei Technologies v. ZTE (2017) and C‑322/18 EPO v. Siemens (2020), which together illuminate how courts balance national procedural autonomy against the harmonised patent system established by the EPC. Comparing them shows when courts will defer to the EPO’s exclusive review and when they retain limited jurisdiction.

For Businesses

• Biotech firms relying on CRISPR licences should pause any enforcement or defensive litigation until the EPO appeal concludes, or risk having orders vacated.

• Boards of directors of companies holding European patents must review their risk registers to reflect that a pending EPO appeal now shields the patent from national injunctions.

• Licensing teams need to adjust contract templates to include clauses that suspend royalty obligations if the underlying patent is under EPO appeal.

• R&D departments should document any use of the disputed CRISPR technology as “potentially infringing” but “temporarily non‑enforceable” to align with the stay.

Key Takeaways

• National courts must defer to the European Patent Office’s appellate process, meaning a revocation is not final until the appeal is decided.

• Practitioners must halt or stay any national infringement actions on patents subject to an EPO appeal and focus resources on the appellate brief.

• Regulators and courts can no longer issue injunctions or damages on such patents, limiting enforcement to the post‑appeal stage.

• Watch for the European Patent Office’s decision on the CRISPR patent, expected in early 2027, as it will unlock all stayed national proceedings.

• General Counsels should audit all European‑patent‑related contracts now and insert stay‑aware clauses before the EPO decision is rendered.

Source: Dutch Court Pauses CRISPR Patent Battle Over EPO Appeal