Short Summary
CureVac Manufacturing GmbH initiated infringement proceedings against multiple Moderna entities before the UPC Local Division The Hague, alleging infringement of European Patent EP4108769 concerning methods of producing and purifying RNA using tangential flow filtration. Moderna filed a preliminary objection challenging the Court's jurisdiction over certain defendants and territories, a Rule 361 application seeking dismissal of claims relating to non-UPC states, and a confidentiality application. The Court deferred the preliminary objection to the main proceedings under Rule 20.2 RoP, dismissed the Rule 361 application, and provisionally granted the confidentiality application while inviting CureVac to respond.
Detailed Summary
CureVac Manufacturing GmbH, the registered proprietor of European Patent EP4108769 relating to methods of producing and purifying ribonucleic acid (RNA), particularly using tangential flow filtration (TFF), initiated infringement proceedings against Moderna Inc. and twelve affiliated Moderna entities on 24 April 2026, registered as case UPC-CFI-1407/2026 before the Local Division The Hague of the Unified Patent Court. Moderna filed a preliminary objection (PO) under Rule 19 RoP on 1 July 2026, seeking dismissal of the Court's international jurisdiction over several defendants (Defendants 1, 5, 6, 7, and 11) for claims relating to both UPC and non-UPC territories, and over Defendants 3 and 4 for claims relating to non-UPC states. Moderna additionally requested dismissal of all claims against all defendants for acts in non-UPC states as manifestly bound to fail under Rule 361 RoP, arguing that CureVac had failed to provide any infringement analysis under the applicable national laws of those states. CureVac responded on 16 July 2026, requesting dismissal of all preliminary objections and the Rule 361 application, or alternatively that the preliminary objections be dealt with in the main proceedings under Rule 20.2 RoP.
On 1 September 2026, Moderna filed redacted and confidential versions of its statement of defence, together with a counterclaim for revocation (registered as case UPC-CFI-3154/2026) and a Rule 262A RoP confidentiality application. The confidentiality application sought to classify certain information as confidential and access-restricted vis-à-vis the Claimant, to restrict access to designated representatives, assistants, private experts, and a maximum of two designated Claimant employees, and to impose obligations of non-disclosure and non-use outside the proceedings.
The Court, presided over by Presiding Judge Edger Brinkman, Judge-Rapporteur Margot Kokke, and Legally Qualified Judge Francois Thomas, issued its Case Management Order on 11 September 2026. Regarding the preliminary objection, the Court reasoned that the PO could not lead to the complete dismissal of the action on grounds of jurisdiction, nor could it render the Local Division The Hague incompetent to hear the entire case. Acknowledging that UPC case law on jurisdiction and competence rules is evolving rapidly, the Judge-Rapporteur deferred the decision on jurisdiction and competence to the main proceedings pursuant to Rule 20.2 RoP, enabling the parties and the Court to consider new developments. Regarding the Rule 361 application, the Court held that such applications are reserved for clear-cut situations only, which was not the case here given CureVac's response and submissions in the statement of claim, and therefore dismissed the Rule 361 application.
Regarding the confidentiality application, the Court provisionally granted it as requested, except for the composition of the confidentiality club. Pending a final Rule 262A order, the unredacted version of Moderna's statement of defence and counterclaim was to be made available only to CureVac's representatives and their assistants, with the confidentiality status of documents changed from HC to R (representatives only). CureVac was given the opportunity to upload a response to the confidentiality application on or before 18 September 2026, and the parties were urged to discuss and reach agreement on the members of the confidentiality club and the terms of a confidentiality order. Additionally, given that a counterclaim for revocation had been filed, the panel indicated its intention not to bifurcate under Article 33(3)(a) UPCA and to request the allocation of a technically qualified judge, giving the parties three working days to provide their views on this matter.
Practitioner Note
This case demonstrates the evidentiary and procedural standards applied in patent matters before The Hague - Local Division. Understanding the court's reasoning in CureVac Manufacturing GmbH vs Moderna Inc. 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.