Short Summary
Promosome LLC brought a patent infringement action before the Local Division Munich of the Unified Patent Court against BioNTech and Pfizer entities concerning European patent EP 2 401 365, targeting several Comirnaty® COVID-19 vaccine variants. The defendants raised a preliminary objection challenging the UPC's jurisdiction over the Comirnaty® Original/Omicron BA.1 variant (embodiment 2b), arguing it was produced and sold only before 1 June 2023, making jurisdiction contrary to the non-retroactivity principle under Art. 28 VCLT. The judge-rapporteur held that the preliminary objection was admissible but deferred its final determination to the main proceedings under Rule 20.2 RoP, pending a related Court of Appeal decision.
Detailed Summary
Promosome LLC (Claimant) filed a patent infringement action before the Local Division Munich of the Unified Patent Court (UPC) under Art. 3(c) and Art. 32(1)(a) of the Agreement on a Unified Patent Court (UPCA), relying on European patent EP 2 401 365. The action was directed against several variants of the Comirnaty® COVID-19 vaccines developed and marketed by the BioNTech and Pfizer defendants, namely: Comirnaty® Original (embodiment 2a), Comirnaty® Original/Omicron BA.1 (embodiment 2b), Comirnaty® Original/Omicron BA.4-5 (embodiment 2c), Comirnaty® Omicron XBB.1.5 (embodiment 2d), and Comirnaty® JN.1 (embodiment 2e).
On 7 March 2025, the defendants raised preliminary objections (Rule 19.1(a) RoP) challenging the UPC's jurisdiction. The defendants did not contest jurisdiction over Comirnaty® variants sold on or after 1 June 2023 (embodiments 2a and 2c–2e), but objected to jurisdiction over embodiment 2b (Comirnaty® Original/Omicron BA.1), which they claimed was produced and sold only before 1 June 2023. They argued that assuming jurisdiction over such concluded acts would violate the principle of international law that treaties have no retrospective effect, as codified in Art. 28 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (VCLT). They contended that the UPC is silent on retroactivity and contains no provisions allowing such an interpretation.
The Claimant countered that the existence of different infringing products obtained by the same infringing method does not change the continuous nature of the infringing use. The Claimant further argued that the defendants had not substantiated their claim that embodiment 2b was not produced or sold after 1 June 2023, and had not addressed other potentially infringing activities such as offering, placing on the market, or storing. The Claimant also pointed to existing UPC case law holding that the UPC has jurisdiction over infringing acts that were ongoing and/or concluded prior to 1 June 2023.
The judge-rapporteur, András Kupecz, found that the preliminary objection was duly filed in accordance with Rules 19.1(a), 19.2, and 19.3 RoP, and that it was permissible to base such an objection on alleged lack of jurisdiction over acts committed in certain time periods. On the merits, the judge-rapporteur expressed his non-binding view concurring with prior UPC case law (including LD Mannheim's order in Fingon/Samsung and LD Munich's order in Industria Lombarda Materiale Elettrico/PHOENIX CONTACT) that the UPC's subject matter competence covers allegedly infringing acts committed before the UPCA's entry into force, and that this does not constitute retroactive application of the treaty.
However, the judge-rapporteur declined to conclusively decide the preliminary objection at this stage, noting that the defendants had not challenged jurisdiction over embodiments sold on or after 1 June 2023, meaning the action would proceed in any event under Rule 19.7 RoP. Given that an appeal was pending from the LD Munich order in Industria Lombarda Materiale Elettrico/PHOENIX CONTACT before the Court of Appeal, the judge-rapporteur considered it most efficient to defer the preliminary objection to the main proceedings under Rule 20.2 RoP, so that the outcome of the appeal could be taken into account. The judge-rapporteur also noted that competence/jurisdiction and applicable law are separate issues to be assessed separately, inviting the parties to address applicable law in their regular pleadings.
Practitioner Note
This case demonstrates the evidentiary and procedural standards applied in patent matters before Munich (DE) Local Division. Understanding the court's reasoning in BioNTech SE, BioNTech Manufacturing GmbH , BioNTech Europe GmbH , BioNTech Manufacturing Marburg GmbH , BioNTech Innovative Manufacturing Services GmbH vs Promosome LLC is valuable context for structuring arguments or assessing risk in similar proceedings.
Related Cases
Rematec GmbH & Co KGvsEurope Forestry B.V.
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court refused leave to appeal against an order of the Local Division Mannheim that had rejected Rematec's two cost determination applications as time-barred and dismissed its applications for reinstatement. The Court held that an application for leave to appeal under Rule 157 in conjunction with Rule 221 of the Rules of Procedure is inadmissible insofar as it is directed against the rejection of a reinstatement application, since Rule 320.7 expressly precludes appeals against orders on reinstatement. The Court also rejected Europe Forestry's request to impose costs on Rematec, noting that cost reimbursement is generally not available in cost determination proceedings.
Rematec GmbH & Co KGvsEurope Forestry B.V.
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court refused leave to appeal against an order of the Local Division Mannheim that had rejected Rematec's two cost determination applications as time-barred and denied reinstatement into the missed deadlines. The Court of Appeal held that an application for leave to appeal under R. 157 and R. 221 RoP is inadmissible insofar as it challenges the rejection of a reinstatement application, because R. 320.7 RoP expressly excludes appeals against orders on reinstatement. No arguable grounds for leave to appeal were identified regarding the rejection of retroactive deadline extension requests.
Promosome LLC and The Scripps Research InstitutevsBioNTech SE, BioNTech Manufacturing GmbH, BioNTech Manufacturing Marburg GmbH, BioNTech Innovative Manufacturing Services GmbH, BioNTech Europe GmbH, Pfizer Manufacturing Belgium NV, Pfizer SAS, Pfizer AB, and Pfizer, Inc.
This order of the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court concerns three appeals (UPC-CoA-146/2026, UPC-CoA-147/2026, and UPC-CoA-148/2026) relating to EP 2 401 365. The appellants, Promosome LLC and The Scripps Research Institute, sought a one-month extension of the deadline for lodging their Statements of grounds of appeal, citing heavy professional workload and school holiday periods. Both groups of respondents (BioNTech and Pfizer entities) opposed the extension. The Court of Appeal rejected the applications, holding that the circumstances relied upon were foreseeable and did not justify an extension of the procedural time period.
Kodak Holding GmbH, Kodak GmbH, Kodak Graphic Communications GmbHvsFujifilm Corporation
This is a procedural order from the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court concerning European Patent EP 3 511 174. The Respondents (Kodak entities) requested a one-week extension of the deadline to file written comments on the Applicant's (Fujifilm's) request for rehearing. The Court granted the extension until 23 October 2026, finding the request admissible and well-founded because the Applicant had consented, the extension was brief, and the Respondents' representatives had been occupied preparing for a related oral hearing before the Düsseldorf Regional Court that was postponed shortly before the application was filed.
Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd.vsSercomm Italia SRL
This is a procedural order from the Local Chamber Munich of the Unified Patent Court concerning alternative service of process on Sercomm Italia SRL in a patent infringement action involving European Patent EP 3 611 989 B1. After multiple failed attempts to serve the Italian defendant at its registered business address, the rapporteur had previously ordered under Rule 275.2 RoP that the prior service measures constituted valid service. The present order addresses the fact that notification of that earlier order was unsuccessful and directs additional means of notification to ensure the defendant is informed.
Network System Technologies LLCvsQualcomm Incorporated, Qualcomm Technologies, Inc., Qualcomm Germany GmbH
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court rejected Network System Technologies LLC's (NST) applications for re-establishment of rights under R. 320 RoP. NST had sought to revive its late-filed appeals against the rejection of its R. 190 Applications (production of evidence) in three infringement proceedings against Qualcomm before the Munich Local Division. The Court held that NST failed to demonstrate that all due care had been taken, as the circumstances cited did not constitute exceptional circumstances or excusable error under the precedent set in AIM v Supponor.
Dealing with a patent challenge?
Whether it's a Section 3(d) rejection, a post-grant opposition, or a FRAND dispute, Arctic's patent litigation team has handled it. Get a strategy call.
Disclaimer: This page contains an automated summary based on publicly available judicial records. The content is generated for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Always verify details against the original source judgment before relying on this information for any legal purpose. If you believe any information is inaccurate, please contact us.