GlaxoSmithKline Biologicals v Pfizer (CFI, 25 February 2026)

Dhenne Avocats · 10 October 2026

Our analysis

Summary

By order of 25 February 2026, issued in the joined proceedings UPC_CFI_620/2025, UPC_CFI_1509/2025 and UPC_CFI_1511/2025 (EP 2 590 626), the Hague Local Division declined to require GSK to cut its 42 conditional auxiliary requests down to ten, but ordered it to file a table of them within one week, and granted the Pfizer and BioNTech defendants a one-week extension for their next pleading instead of the month requested. The order shows a strict approach both to time extensions and to the volume of auxiliary requests.

Question

Do the number of auxiliary requests and the length of the Reply justify limiting those requests and extending the deadline for the Rejoinder by one month under Rule 9.3?

Decision

Further combinations or reformulations of auxiliary requests require approval under Rule 30.2 (paragraph 5). The Division doubted that 42 requests could be handled within the UPC’s timeframe of about 14 months, neither the number of invalidity attacks nor an unsubstantiated need for consistency with other proceedings justified them (paragraph 6). As there was no table showing the features added and the attacks addressed (paragraph 7), one was ordered, with admissibility and any cap reserved for the interim conference (paragraph 8). Deadlines must balance the parties’ interests against the need for expeditious proceedings (paragraphs 9 and 10): the 377-page Reply is not excessive compared with the opposing pleadings once layout is taken into account (paragraph 11), the allegedly new arguments were not identified (paragraph 12), and only the high number of requests warranted one extra week, with the deadline set at 19 March 2026 (paragraph 13).

Key points for practice

• An extension under Rule 9.3 requires specific grounds. The apparent length of a pleading or unexplained complaints of late filing are not enough (paragraphs 11 to 13).
• A large set of auxiliary requests should be presented in a table linking each request to the invalidity attacks (paragraphs 6 to 8).

Provisions applied

Rules of Procedure

Rules 9.3, 30.1 and 30.2

Related decisions

• GlaxoSmithKline Biologicals SA v Pfizer, 17 June 2026, order following the interim conference.

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.