Opens in a new tab

Promosome v BioNTech (CFI, 17 April 2025)

Date17 April 2025
CourtCFI
DivisionMunich (DE) Local Division
Type of actionPreliminary objection
Registry referenceApp_11261/2025 · ORD_14156/2025
PartiesPfizer Manufacturing Belgium NV , Pfizer SAS, Pfizer, Inc. , Pfizer AB v. Promosome LLC

Official decision (PDF) · UPC registry entry

Dhenne Avocats represents claimants and defendants in European patent disputes before the Unified Patent Court, including the Paris divisions.

Contact the firm

Dhenne Avocats · 10 October 2026

Our analysis

Summary

By order of 17 April 2025 (UPC_CFI_846/2024, ORD_14155/2025 and ORD_14156/2025), Judge-rapporteur Kupecz of the Munich Local Division held admissible the preliminary objections of the BioNTech and Pfizer defendants in the infringement action on EP 2 401 365 brought by Promosome LLC, and deferred them to the main proceedings (Rule 20.2). The objections concern only the Comirnaty Original/Omicron BA.1 variant, which according to the defendants was made and sold only before 1 June 2023. The order accepts a partial preliminary objection defined by the period of the alleged acts.

Question

May a preliminary objection target only part of the action, defined by the period of the alleged acts, and must it be decided at once?

Decision

Lodged in time and in the form required by Rules 19.1(a), 19.2 and 19.3, the objections are admissible, as an objection may cover only part of the action. The judge-rapporteur indicated, without deciding, that the UPC’s competence under Art. 32(1)(a) UPCA, read with Arts 2(g) and 3(c), extends to acts committed before its entry into force. Competence and applicable law remain separate questions. Since competence is not disputed for variants sold from 1 June 2023, the action proceeds in any event (Rule 19.7), and the objections are deferred pending the Court of Appeal’s decision in Industria Lombarda v PHOENIX CONTACT. A panel review may be requested (Rule 333).

Key points for practice

Provisions applied

Agreement on a Unified Patent Court
Arts 2(g), 3(c) and 32(1)(a)
Rules of Procedure
Rules 19.1(a), 19.2, 19.3, 19.7, 20.2, 102.2 and 333
Case law cited
Fingon v Samsung, Mannheim Local Division, 4 April 2025, Industria Lombarda Materiale Elettrico v PHOENIX CONTACT, Munich Local Division, 10 February 2025, Court of Appeal, 28 March 2025 (UPC_CoA_170/2025)

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.


Going further

Lexicon: Local and central divisions (UPC).

Dhenne Avocats blog: The Transitional Period and the UPC: Coordinating Two Judicial Orders.

Publications by Matthieu Dhenne: Pleading the Long Arm: What a UPC Statement of Claim Must Carry Beyond Jurisdiction, Valeo v. Bosch and the Redistribution of Cases Within the UPC (Kluwer Patent Blog).

Source and translations

Official source
Unified Patent Court registry link recorded in the record
Original language
not recorded
Translation available
no translation recorded the firm’s French record is a summary, not a translation
Date checked
not recorded
Only the official text is authoritative. A machine translation is never presented as official, republishing a third-party document requires a verified basis in rights, and a link to the source is preferred.

Follow this case

Proceedings, related decisions, appeals, parties and patents as recorded in the registry and in the Dhenne Avocats corpus. Each link states its source.

Proceedings

No case number recorded in this record.

Parties

Exact name as it appears in the record, group affiliation only where sourced and dated.

Decisions in the same proceedings and documented appeals

No other decision in the corpus bears the same case number, and no appeal is documented in the corpus to date.

What the record states

Nature of the act
Preliminary objection
Outcome (Dhenne Avocats summary)
Les exceptions préliminaires, recevables bien que partielles, seront examinées au fond. L'action se poursuit pour les variantes vendues à partir du 1er juin 2023.
Appeal
No appeal documented in the corpus, this does not mean that no appeal was lodged.
Instance
First-instance decision, whether it has become final is not recorded.

Patents mentioned

Related decisions cited in the analyses

Scope: Dhenne Avocats corpus. Registry-based links are marked “official number”; links derived from the analyses are marked as such. An erroneous link can be withdrawn without deleting any record.

Patents and standards

PublicationRole in the disputeFamilyStandard and declarationPoolSources
EP 2 401 365
Reengineering mrna primary structure for enhanced protein production
recorded proprietor: Scripps Research Institute
Mentioned in the analysis (role not qualified)
Also mentioned in 6 other decision(s): Promosome v BioNTech (CFI, UPC_CFI_846/2024, 7 July 2026) · Promosome v BioNTech (CFI, 15 July 2025) · Promosome v BioNTech (CFI, 9 April 2025) · Promosome v BioNTech (CFI, 3 April 2025) · Promosome v BioNTech (CFI, 10 March 2025) · Promosome v BioNTech (CoA, 12 October 2026)
not recordednot recordednot recordedEspacenet · European Patent Register
existence and title of the publication checked on 30 October 2026 (Google Patents, Espacenet and Register links are not checked automatically)
mentioned in: Dhenne Avocats analysis
The statuses “asserted in litigation”, “declared essential”, “listed by a pool” and “essentiality examined by a court” are distinct and may coexist. Validity, infringement and technical essentiality are different questions. Scope: patents cited in the decisions of the Dhenne Avocats corpus, with no essentiality score or prediction.

Receive an alert

Weekly summary of new records and substantive updates matching what you follow. Address confirmed by email, unsubscribe at any time, one email per week even where several of your follows match.

Follow

Weekly summary, on Fridays.