UPClytics
View all cases

UPC CFI 485/2025

Jun 19, 2025·EP2401365 · REENGINEERING MRNA PRIMARY STRUCTURE FOR ENHANCED PROTEIN PRODUCTION

Case details
Status
Case Closed (Patent revoked)
Action
Counterclaim for revocation
Category
Counterclaim for revocation
Parties
Claimants
Representatives
Respondents
Representatives
Division
Munich LD
Technology
  • Chemistry
    Biotechnology
Language
English
First decided
Jul 7, 2026
How this compares
The court's record for this kind of case, counted in first-instance rulings. A figure in brackets is the number of rulings a rate rests on.
Patent revokedMedian days to first decision
All UPC37% (34/91)124
Munich LDLockedLocked
Judge Daniel VossLockedLocked
Judge András KupeczLockedLocked
Judge Georg WernerLockedLocked
Judge Martin SchmidtLockedLocked

At the UPC: Pfizer Group (31 cases)·Promosome LLC (15 cases)

This dispute contains 11 other proceedings

UPC CoA 146/2026·UPC CoA 148/2026·UPC CFI 2819/2026·UPC CFI 2821/2026·UPC CFI 846/2024 and 6 more

2 other defendants litigating the same or a related patent

UPC CoA 147/2026·UPC CFI 535/2025

Start a free trial to see how each one ended.

More cases: Munich LD·2025

Decisions
  • 2026-07-07
    Counterclaim for revocationPublic

    Summary: The Local Division Munich revoked European patent EP 2 401 365 in its entirety with effect to Germany, France and Sweden, finding claim 1 as granted lacks novelty over prior art D1 (WO 91/01374) and D2 (Matsuda et al. 2006), and all 25 auxiliary requests invalid. The infringement action brought by Promosome LLC against BioNTech/Pfizer was dismissed both because the patent is invalid and because the claimant failed to sufficiently substantiate that the attacked Comirnaty embodiments practised the claimed method of mutating actual secondary initiation codons.

    Show the legal issues (7)
    • Standing to sue — whether Promosome LLC holds an exclusive licence under Art. 47(2) UPCA sufficient to bring infringement proceedings
    • Temporal jurisdiction — whether the UPC has competence over acts of infringement committed before 1 June 2023 (Art. 28 VCLT / Art. 32 UPCA)
    • Claim construction — whether 'secondary initiation codon' in claim 1 requires an actual (functional) codon at which protein synthesis initiates, or merely a putative/potential codon
    • Lack of novelty of claim 1 over D2 (Matsuda et al. 2006, RNA) and D1 (WO 91/01374) — enabling disclosure of prior art for novelty
    • Infringement — whether Comirnaty mRNA vaccines practise the claimed method of mutating actual secondary initiation codons versus codon optimisation
    • Validity of 25 auxiliary requests — lack of novelty (AR1, AR3, AR5), added matter (AR2), lack of inventive step (AR1, AR3, AR4), partial-problem approach for AR4 combining secondary-initiation-codon mutation and miRNA-binding-site mutation
    • Admissibility of late-filed evidence (exhibits VB37, VB38) and Rule 36 RoP further written pleadings
Document titleDatePublic
Decision2026-09-28Public
Communication2026-08-25Not public
Receipt2026-08-05Not public
Cover sheet2026-08-05Not public
Application document Applicant2026-08-05Not public
Decision2026-07-07Public
Case closed2026-07-07Not public
Decision2026-07-07Not public
Decision2026-07-07Not public
Decision2026-07-07Not public