CureVac Manufacturing v Moderna (CFI, UPC_CFI_1407/2026, 1 July 2026)

Dhenne Avocats · 10 October 2026

Our analysis

Summary

By order of 1 July 2026, the judge-rapporteur of The Hague Local Division dismisses CureVac Manufacturing GmbH’s Rule 190 RoP application for Moderna to produce extracts from its CTD dossier and technical data sheets on an RNA manufacturing process, and confirms the common timetable requested under Rule 9.3 RoP. Made in the infringement action on EP 4 108 769 (UPC_CFI_1407/2026) and in the evidence production proceedings (UPC_CFI_1408/2026), the order shows that an application admissible from the outset of the action may still be premature.

Question

Does an application for production of evidence, filed with the statement of claim and directed at a confidential process, meet the requirements of necessity and proportionality before the defendants have answered the infringement case?

Decision

The application is admissible: filing it on the day the action is brought counts as filing during the written procedure (paragraph 10). Of the four cumulative conditions derived from Art. 59(1) UPCA, Rule 190.1 RoP and Art. 6 of Directive 2004/48 (paragraph 11), necessity and proportionality are not met at this stage, since Moderna has not yet been able to respond to the infringement allegations and it is unclear which facts will be disputed (paragraphs 12 and 13). The assessment may differ once the extent of the dispute on infringement is known (paragraph 14). The deadlines for preliminary objections (1 July 2026) and the statement of defence (1 September 2026) are confirmed for all defendants (paragraph 15).

Key points for practice

• Although Rule 190 RoP sets no deadline, timing weighs in the proportionality assessment, particularly for confidential manufacturing information (paragraphs 13 and 14).
• The dismissal may be appealed within fifteen days of service (Art. 73(2)(a) UPCA, Rules 190.6 and 220.1(c) RoP).

Provisions applied

Agreement on a Unified Patent Court

Arts 41(3), 42, 53, 59(1), 73(2)(a) and 74(1)

Rules of Procedure

Rules 9.3, 29, 190, 220.1, 262.2 and 262A

Directive 2004/48/EC

Arts 3 and 6

Case law cited

Oppo v Panasonic, Court of Appeal, 24 September 2024, Winnow v Orbisk, The Hague Local Division, 14 October 2024, Dish v Aylo II, Mannheim Local Division, 20 October 2024, Promosome v BioNTech, Munich Local Division, 3 April 2025, Aesthetics v LABS, Brussels Local Division, 14 April 2026, Avient v Xingi, The Hague Local Division, 11 May 2026.

Related decisions

• CureVac Manufacturing v Moderna, 11 September 2026, later order on the preliminary objection and confidentiality.

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.