GlaxoSmithKline Biologicals v Moderna Netherlands (CFI, UPC_CFI_616/2025, 12 June 2026)

Dhenne Avocats · 10 October 2026

Our analysis

Summary

In the joined proceedings UPC_CFI_616/2025 (infringement) and UPC_CFI_1439/2025 (counterclaim for revocation) between GlaxoSmithKline Biologicals SA and Moderna Netherlands B.V. and fourteen other Moderna companies concerning EP 2 590 626, the judge-rapporteur of The Hague Local Division records the decisions taken at the interim conference of 11 June 2026, whose recording failed. The order is of practical interest for its preliminary views and its method of narrowing the case.

Question

How should the hearing be prepared in a case with many invalidity attacks and auxiliary requests, and how should late-filed material be dealt with?

Decision

Provisionally, feature 1.3 does not appear to be literally infringed, which puts equivalence at the centre of the debate. The added matter and insufficiency attacks seem unconvincing, and several auxiliary requests may not comply with Rule 30.1(b) RoP, narrowing the attacks now does not prevent the others from being raised on appeal (paragraph 4). Moderna must select its strongest invalidity attacks, five at most according to the conference, and GSK must link each auxiliary request to a specific attack. Moderna’s objection to GSK’s new material is partly upheld as regards infringement: cryo-TEM data, part of an expert declaration and material on an additional accused product are excluded. Experts are heard on specific disputed facts (Rule 112.2(b)), without general cross-examination (paragraph 7). The judge-rapporteur’s provisional view is that the conditional nature of the counterclaim should not prevent the related costs from being taken into account (paragraph 5). Each value is set at EUR 50,000,001 and the ceiling for recoverable costs at EUR 2,000,000.

Key points for practice

• The judge-rapporteur’s preliminary views, reserved for the panel, guide the choice of the arguments to be pleaded (paragraph 4).
• Auxiliary requests must be argued on their own terms under Rule 30.1(b) RoP (paragraph 4).

Provisions applied

Rules of Procedure

Rules 9, 30.1, 36, 105.5, 106, 112.2, 176, 181.2 and 333

Case law cited

Centripedal v Keysight, Mannheim Local Division, 5 December 2025, UPC_CFI_414/2024, Emboline v AorticLab, Munich Local Division, 13 January 2026, UPC_CFI_628/2024, BFexaQC v Nvidia, Munich Local Division, 11 March 2026

Related decisions

• GlaxoSmithKline Biologicals SA v Moderna Netherlands, 7 May 2026, earlier order on the hearing of experts (Rule 176).
• GlaxoSmithKline Biologicals SA v Pfizer, 17 June 2026, Rule 105.5 order in the parallel case on the same patent.

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.