Promosome v BioNTech (CFI, 17 April 2025)
| Date | 17 April 2025 |
|---|---|
| Court | CFI |
| Division | Munich (DE) Local Division |
| Type of action | Preliminary objection |
| Registry reference | App_11261/2025 · ORD_14156/2025 |
| Parties | Pfizer 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.
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
- Practical point: a time-limited competence objection directed at some products only does not hold up the action and is likely to be heard with the merits.
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
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
Parties
- claimantPfizer Manufacturing Belgium NV9 decisions in the corpusFollow this party
- defendantPromosome LLC7 decisions in the corpusFollow this party
- claimantPfizer, Inc.7 decisions in the corpusFollow this party
- claimantPfizer SAS7 decisions in the corpusFollow this party
- claimantPfizer AB7 decisions in the corpusFollow this party
Decisions in the same proceedings and documented appeals
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
EP 2 401 365mentioned in: Dhenne Avocats analysis Follow this patent
Related decisions cited in the analyses
- Samsung Electronics v Fingon (CFI, 4 April 2025) cited in this record
- PHOENIX CONTACT v ILME (CoA, 28 March 2025) cited in this record
- PHOENIX CONTACT v Industria Lombarda Materiale Elettrico I.L.M.E. (CFI, 10 February 2025) cited in this record
- BioNTech (CFI, 17 April 2025) cites this decision
Patents and standards
| Publication | Role in the dispute | Family | Standard and declaration | Pool | Sources |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
EP 2 401 365Reengineering 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 recorded | not recorded | not recorded | Espacenet · 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 |
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.