GlaxoSmithKline Biologicals v Moderna Netherlands (CFI, 28 November 2025)

Dhenne Avocats · 10 October 2026

Our analysis

Summary

In the infringement action brought by GlaxoSmithKline Biologicals SA against fifteen Moderna group companies (UPC_CFI_619/2025), The Hague Local Division orders of its own motion, under Rule 302.1 RoP, that the single counterclaim for revocation directed at EP 4 066 856 and EP 4 226 941 (UPC_CFI_1526/2025) be split into two actions, one per patent, with a new court fee payable for the new action. The order shows that a counterclaim covering several patents may be separated, for practical reasons and in the light of the court fee rules, without the defendant losing its service date.

Question

Should a single counterclaim for revocation against two patents, at different stages of EPO opposition proceedings, be split into two actions, and on what terms as to fees and time limits?

Decision

As the two patents are at different stages of the opposition proceedings, it is impractical to combine both counterclaims in one action, and the Division exercises its discretion under Rule 302.1 RoP (paragraph 3). The court fee regime also warrants separation, since the fee for a counterclaim for revocation is capped at EUR 20,000 per action. A new fee of EUR 20,000 is due for the new action (paragraphs 4 and 5). The date of service of the original counterclaim, 12 November 2025, applies to both actions for the purposes of Rule 29 RoP (paragraph 6). The statement of defence and counterclaims are to be uploaded in the new action with only the relevant exhibits, and the Registry will adjust the CMS (paragraph 7).

Key points for practice

• Combining several patents in a single counterclaim for revocation risks a split of the court’s own motion and an additional court fee (paragraphs 3 to 5).
• The split does not deprive the defendant of the original service date for the time limits under Rule 29 RoP (paragraph 6).

Provisions applied

Rules of Procedure

Rules 29 and 302.1

Related decisions

• GlaxoSmithKline Biologicals SA v Moderna, 25 February 2026, later order of the judge-rapporteur on amendment of the claim and auxiliary requests.
• GlaxoSmithKline Biologicals SA v Moderna Netherlands, 10 August 2026, order declaring the counterclaim against EP 4 066 856 devoid of purpose.

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.