UPC CFI 1439/2025

At the UPC: Moderna Group (20 cases)·GlaxoSmithKline Biologicals SA (20 cases)

• 2026-09-14
  InfringementPublic

  Summary: The Hague Local Division panel order (11 Sep 2026) in GlaxoSmithKline Biologicals SA v Moderna Netherlands B.V. and fourteen Moderna affiliates (EP 2 590 626; infringement action UPC_CFI_616/2025 and counterclaim for revocation UPC_CFI_1439/2025): after the oral hearing of 1 Sep 2026, the panel revokes under R. 335 RoP the judge-rapporteur's earlier rejection of GSK's late-filed 'New ATEM' cryo-TEM reports with stained RNA of the accused products, admits them, orders GSK to resubmit them with a 600-word explanation by 16 Sep 2026 and lets Moderna respond within one week; the target decision date is unaffected.

  Show the legal issues (3)

  • Revocation of a judge-rapporteur's case management order by the panel (R. 331.3, 334, 335 RoP)
  • Admission of late-filed evidence after the oral hearing; right to be heard (Art. 76(2) UPCA)
  • R. 114 RoP exceptional case
• 2026-06-12
  Counterclaim for revocationPublic

  Summary: The court issued a case management order (R.105.5) setting out procedural directions for the upcoming oral hearing scheduled for 1 September 2026, including limits on the number of validity attacks and auxiliary requests, rulings on admissibility of certain exhibits and submissions, and pleading time allocations. No substantive patent ruling was made.

  Show the legal issues (8)

  • Case management directions under R.105.5 RoP
  • Admissibility of late-filed exhibits (Cryo-TEM data BB140A-E, particle-by-particle analysis in Forrest 2nd Declaration BB137A)
  • Admissibility of mCOMBRIAX as additional accused product
  • Objections to Moderna exhibits HL77, HL78, HL82, HL83, HL73, HL74
  • Withdrawal of GSK R.9 application dated 22 May 2026
  • Rejection of Moderna R.36/R.9 application dated 2 June 2026
  • Dismissal of GSK R.9 application of 8 June 2026
  • Maximum recoverable costs ceiling of EUR 2,000,000 based on case value
• 2026-05-07
  Infringement ActionPublic

  Summary: The Court dismissed GSK's Rule 176 application for in-person hearing of five party experts, finding that GSK failed to specify which particular facts each expert was expected to confirm. The Court also dismissed Moderna's third Rule 9.3 application for a one-week extension of the deadline to file its rejoinder to the application to amend, finding no exceptional circumstances justifying the extension.

  Show the legal issues (5)

  • Rule 176 RoP application for in-person hearing of party experts
  • Rule 9.3 RoP application for extension of procedural deadline
  • Admissibility requirements for oral witness/expert evidence under Rule 176
  • Exceptional circumstances standard for deadline extensions
  • Preparation for interim conference