Promosome v BioNTech (CFI, 3 April 2025)

Dhenne Avocats · 10 October 2026

Our analysis

Summary

By order of 3 April 2025 (UPC_CFI_846/2024, ORD_11610/2025 and ORD_11611/2025), Judge-rapporteur Kupecz of the Munich Local Division rejected the applications to produce evidence filed on 7 March 2025 by the five BioNTech companies and the four Pfizer companies, defendants to Promosome LLC’s infringement action on EP 2 401 365. They sought, under penalty, the detailed materials and methods and the raw data behind the qPCR experiments in Exhibit VB 6. A single document decides both applications (Nos 11376/2025 and 11372/2025), which were identical in substance.

Question

May a party obtain, under Rule 190 RoP, the raw data behind experiments relied on by its opponent without first contesting the facts those experiments establish?

Decision

The defendants did not state which fact they intended to prove, had not specifically contested the facts drawn from Exhibit VB 6 or raised concrete defences the evidence would support, a prior step under Rule 24(e) to (g) RoP, and offered no reasonably available and plausible evidence for their defence. Whether the evidence was sufficiently specified under Rule 190.1 RoP was doubtful but left open. The front-loaded nature of the proceedings does not oblige the claimant to file all underlying data at this stage, since the parties determine their own evidence (Art. 43 UPCA). Production may still be ordered later (Rules 190 and 172.2 RoP) or clarification sought (Rule 9.1 RoP). The penalty request fell with the main request. Panel review remains available (Rule 333 RoP).

Key points for practice

• Practical point: an application to produce evidence must follow a specific denial of the facts and a concrete defence, without them it is inadmissible or, in any event, unfounded.

Provisions applied

Agreement on a Unified Patent Court

Arts 43, 59(1) and 82(4)

Rules of Procedure

Rules 9.1, 24, 172.2, 190.1 and 333

Directive 2004/48/EC

Art. 6(1)

Case law cited

Guangdong OPPO v Panasonic, Court of Appeal, 24 September 2024, Winnow Solutions v Orbisk, The Hague Local Division, 14 October 2024, Dish v Aylo, Mannheim Local Division, 20 October 2024

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.