GlaxoSmithKline Biologicals v C.P. Pharmaceuticals International C.V. (CFI, 17 June 2026)

Dhenne Avocats · 10 October 2026

Our analysis

Summary

In the action for infringement of EP 2 590 626 brought by GlaxoSmithKline Biologicals SA against thirty Pfizer and BioNTech group companies (UPC_CFI_620/2025) and the joined counterclaims for revocation (UPC_CFI_1509/2025 and UPC_CFI_1511/2025), the judge-rapporteur of The Hague Local Division prepares the oral hearing of 1 September 2026. The order is useful for its method of narrowing the case and for refusing the defendants access to the file of the parallel case against Moderna.

Question

Can a party obtain access to the pleadings and evidence in parallel proceedings on the same patent, and is there a general right to cross-examine experts?

Decision

The request for access to the file in UPC_CFI_616/2025, based on Rules 9 and 262.1 RoP, is refused: the integrity of the proceedings, the timing of the request and the front-loaded written procedure weigh against it, and the defendants, whose products differ, show no specific interest (paragraph 12). There is no general right to cross-examine experts. The Court may question them on specific disputed facts at the hearing (Rule 112.2(b)), and Rule 181.2(a) and (b) applies to party experts (paragraph 11). Fourteen new prior art documents are excluded, save for one document justified in 300 words (paragraph 9). The defendants must select their strongest invalidity attacks and the patentee must link each auxiliary request to a specific attack (paragraph 5). The judge-rapporteur’s provisional view is that the conditional nature of the counterclaims should not prevent the related costs from being taken into account (paragraph 6). Stenographers are allowed on the conditions set by the Court of Appeal (paragraph 14).

Key points for practice

• Absent a specific interest, access to the file of a parallel case on the same patent is refused (paragraph 12).
• Experts are heard on specific disputed facts, not cross-examined generally (paragraph 11).

Provisions applied

Rules of Procedure

Rules 9, 36, 105.5, 106, 112.2, 176, 181.2 and 262.1

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, VMR Products v NJOY Netherlands, Court of Appeal, 29 December 2025, Amazon v InterDigital, Court of Appeal, 30 March 2026, GlaxoSmithKline Biologicals SA v Moderna Netherlands, The Hague Local Division, 7 May 2026

Related decisions

• GlaxoSmithKline Biologicals SA v Moderna Netherlands, 12 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.