Short Summary
This procedural order concerns an infringement action brought by GlaxoSmithKline Biologicals SA against fifteen Moderna entities regarding European patents EP4066856 and EP4226941. The Defendants filed a statement of defence and a counterclaim for revocation covering both patents. The Court exercised its discretionary power under Rule 302.1 of the Rules of Procedure to order the Defendants to split the counterclaim for revocation into two separate actions, one for each patent, due to the different stages of pending EPO opposition proceedings and the capped court fee structure for revocation counterclaims.
Detailed Summary
The Claimant, GlaxoSmithKline Biologicals SA, initiated infringement proceedings against fifteen Defendants belonging to the Moderna group, including Moderna Netherlands B.V., Moderna Biotech Spain S.L., Moderna Biotech UK Limited, ModernaTX, Inc., and Moderna Inc., among others. The proceedings were registered under case number UPC_CFI_619/2025 and concerned two European patents owned by the Claimant: EP4066856 and EP4226941. The case was heard by a panel of the Local Division The Hague, presided by Edger Brinkman, with Stefan Schilling, Martin Schmidt, and Margot Kokke (judge rapporteur). The language of proceedings was English.
On 11 November 2025, the Defendants submitted a statement of defence together with a counterclaim for revocation, which was registered as a separate case under UPC_CFI_1526/2025. This counterclaim for revocation challenged the validity of both patents at issue in the infringement action. The question before the Court was whether the combined counterclaim should be maintained as a single action or separated into two distinct proceedings, one for each patent.
& Analysis
The Court invoked its discretionary power under Rule 302.1 of the Rules of Procedure to order the separation of the proceedings. The Court identified several practical and procedural reasons supporting this decision. First, the two patents were at different stages of opposition proceedings before the European Patent Office, and the possible different outcomes for each patent made it procedurally impractical to combine the two counterclaims for invalidity in a single action. Second, the Court qualified the case as complex and large, and noted that the payment of court fees warranted separation. While in an infringement action concerning several related patents, the involvement of multiple patents can be taken into account when determining the value of the action for applying the Rules on Court fees, this is not the case for counterclaims for revocation. The Court emphasized that the court fee per counterclaim action is capped at EUR 20,000, as confirmed in the Guidelines for the determination of the court fees and the ceiling of recoverable costs of the Administrative Committee (Section II.2.a), both in the original version of 2 April 2023 and as recently amended.
Final Order & Ruling
The Court ordered the Defendants, as claimants in the counterclaim for revocation action, to separate or split the proceedings into two counterclaims, one concerning each of the patents at issue (EP4066856 and EP4226941). This procedural order was issued to ensure efficient management of the proceedings given the differing procedural postures of the two patents and the applicable court fee structure.
Practitioner Note
This case demonstrates the evidentiary and procedural standards applied in patent matters before The Hague (NL) Local Division. Understanding the court's reasoning in GlaxoSmithKline Biologicals SA vs Moderna et al. 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.