Promosome v BioNTech (CFI, 15 July 2025)

Dhenne Avocats · 10 October 2026

Our analysis

Summary

By order of 15 July 2025 (UPC_CFI_846/2024, App_29243/2025), the judge rapporteur Kupecz (Munich Local Division) rejected the requests for protection of confidential information filed by the BioNTech and Pfizer companies, defendants to the infringement action under EP 2 401 365 brought by Promosome and The Scripps Research Institute. The information at issue was already covered by the confidentiality order of 10 March 2025 (ORD_6596/2025). The order also applies to the revocation counterclaims UPC_CFI_485/2025 and UPC_CFI_535/2025.

Question

Is a fresh Rule 262A order needed where information that is already protected is repeated in another pleading?

Decision

No. Requests I to III are rejected: information from exhibits VB 4a and VB 4b, already classified as confidential, remains protected by points 2 to 6 of the order of 10 March 2025 when it appears in the statement of defence and counterclaim. It also derives from licence agreements between the claimant and the patent proprietor, who already know it, so no restriction of access as against them is justified. The request for the hearing to be held in private (request IV) is deferred to the oral hearing, under Art. 45 UPCA. The Registry is to give the claimants’ representatives access to the unredacted pleadings.

Key points for practice

• Practical point: information already protected by a confidentiality order does not call for a new application when it is repeated in a later pleading, and protection cannot be asserted against a party that already knows the information.

Provisions applied

Agreement on a Unified Patent Court

Arts 45 and 58

Rules of Procedure

Rules 102.2, 262.2, 262A and 333

Case law cited

Curio Bioscience v 10x Genomics, 20 June 2024, Court of Appeal

Prepared by Dhenne Avocats from the official decision, consulted on 10 October 2026. The database is updated every week, on Friday. Only the official text is authoritative.