CureVac Manufacturing v Moderna (CFI, 14 September 2026)

Dhenne Avocats · 10 October 2026

Our analysis

Summary

By order of 11 September 2026, the judge-rapporteur of The Hague Local Division defers Moderna’s preliminary objection on international jurisdiction to the main proceedings, dismisses its Rule 361 request and provisionally grants confidentiality protection limited to the representatives of CureVac Manufacturing GmbH. The order, made in the infringement action on EP 4 108 769, shows that an objection which cannot dispose of the whole action need not be decided at the outset.

Question

Must a preliminary objection directed at certain defendants and at claims concerning non-UPC States be decided immediately, and can those claims be dismissed under Rule 361 RoP?

Decision

Since the objection could lead neither to the dismissal of the whole action for lack of jurisdiction nor to the division lacking competence for the entire case, and since case law in this area is evolving rapidly, the decision is deferred to the main proceedings under Rule 20.2 RoP (paragraph 7). A Rule 361 application, assuming it is admissible within a preliminary objection, is reserved for clear-cut situations. This is not one, and the application is dismissed (paragraph 8). Pending a final order under Rule 262A RoP, the unredacted statement of defence and counterclaim for revocation are available only to CureVac’s representatives and their assistants (paragraphs 9 and 10). The panel also states its intention not to bifurcate under Art. 33(3)(a) UPCA (paragraph 11).

Key points for practice

• A partial preliminary objection on jurisdiction may be deferred to the main proceedings where the relevant case law is still developing (paragraph 7).
• Dismissal under Rule 361 RoP requires a clear-cut situation, in line with the Court of Appeal case law cited in the order (paragraph 8).

Provisions applied

Agreement on a Unified Patent Court

Art. 33(3)(a)

Rules of Procedure

Rules 19, 20.2, 262.2, 262A and 361

Case law cited

Aylo v Dish, Court of Appeal, 3 September 2024, on the admissibility of a Rule 361 application within a preliminary objection, Microsoft v Suinno, Court of Appeal, 15 October 2024, on Rule 361 being reserved for clear-cut situations.

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.