UPC_CFI_620/2025; UPC_CFI_1509/2025; UPC_CFI_1511/2025 – GSK v Pfizer

Expert Commentary

Interim conference Facts 1. This concerns an infringement case against 21 defendants. 2. An interim conference was held by the Judge-Rapporteur (“JR”) with the Technically Qualified Judge (“TQJ”) present. 3. Topics for the interim conference were suggested before the interim conference by the parties. The JR The JR of the Local Division in The Hague did the now usual housekeeping: 1. Two identical counterclaims shall be considered as one but no recovery of court fees. 2. The parties are to pick their best validity attacks (5) and auxiliary requests (5-10). 3. The parties are asked to consider to make counterclaim conditional. 4. The parties are asked to agree on costs or otherwise have to produce cost specification before the oral hearing. 5. The JR decided most outstanding requests, among other thing about late filed documents. 6. There will be no cross examination, but experts are supposed to attend the hearing. 7. Stenographers (requested by both parties) can attend. 8. Value of the litigation was set for each claim and counterclaim (the two combined counterclaims) on € 50.000.001,00. 9. A time schedule is set for the oral hearing. 10. Powerpoint presentations without new information are allowed but have to be sent to the Court at least 24 hours before the hearing; Dutch style pleading notes (no legal status) are allowed. Comment As stated before, this is the way a timely interim conference is intended in the Rules. It makes it possible to deal with a complicated case in an efficient way during a one day oral hearing.

Full Decision Text

1 The Hague Local Division UPC CFI 620/2025 UPC CFI 1509/2025 UPC CFI 1511/2025 R.105.5 Order of the Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court delivered on 17/06/2026 CLAIMANT GlaxoSmithKline Biologicals SA,Rue de l’Institut 89, 1330 Rixensart, Belgium Represented by Carlos van Staveren, Tjibbe Douma, Nicole Jadeja, Emilia Zalewska and others (Bird & Bird) DEFENDANTS 1. C.P. Pharmaceuticals International C.V., Rivium Westlaan 142, 2909LD Capelle aan den Ijssel, the Netherlands 2. Pfizer Export B.V., Rivium Westlaan 142, 2909 LD Capelle aan den IJssel, the Netherlands 3. Pfizer B.V., Rivium Westlaan 142, 2909 LD Capelle aan den IJssel, the Netherlands 4. Pfizer Manufacturing Belgium N.V., Rijksweg 12, 2870 Puurs-Sint-Amands, Belgium 5. Pfizer Service Company B.V./S.r.l., Hoge Wei 10, 1930 Zaventem, Belgium 6. Pfizer S.A./N.V., Boulevard de la Plaine 17, 1050 Brussels, Belgium 7. Pfizer Luxembourg SARL, Rond-Point du Kirchberg 51, Avenue J.F. Kennedy, L-1855 Luxembourg, Luxembourg 8. Pfizer Inc., 66 Hudson Boulevard East, New York, 10001-2192, the United States of America 9. Pfizer Corporation Austria Gesellschaft m.b.H, Floridsdorfer Hauptstraße 1, 1210 Vienna, Austria 10. Pfizer ApS, Lautrupvang 8, 2750 Ballerup, Denmark 11. Pfizer Oy, Tietokuja 4, 00330 Helsinki, Finland 12. Pfizer S.A.S., 23-25 avenue du Docteur Lannelongue, 75014 Paris, France 13. Pfizer Pharma GmbH, Friedrichstraße 110, 10117 Berlin, Germany 14. Pfizer S.r.l., Via Isonzo 71, 04100 Latina LT, Italy 15. Laboratórios Pfizer, Lda., Lagoas Park – Building 10, 2740 271 Porto Salvo, Portugal 16. Pfizer Romania S.R.L., Șoseaua București-Ploiești 172-176 (Willbrook Platinum Business and Convention Center), 013697 Bucharest, Romania 17. Pfizer AB, Solnavägen 3H, 113 63 Stockholm, Sweden 18. Pfizer, spol. S.r.o., Stroupežnického 3191/17, 150 00 Prague 5, Czech Republic 19. Pfizer Hellas A.E., Mesoghion Ave 243, Neo Psychiko 154 51, Athens, Greece 20. Pfizer, S.L., Avenida de Europa, 20-B, Parque empresarial, La Moraleja, 28108 Alcobendas Madrid, Spain 21. Pfizer Croatia d.o.o., Slavonska avenija 6, 10 000 Zagreb, Croatia 2 22. Pfizer Gyógyszerkereskedelmi Kft., Alkotás utca 53, H-1123 Budapest, Hungary 23. Pfizer Polska Sp. Z.o.o., ul. Żwirki I Wigury 16b, Warsaw 02-092, Poland 24. Pfizer Trading Polska Sp. Z.o.o., ul. Żwirki I Wigury 16b, Warsaw 02-092, Poland 25. Pfizer AG, Schärenmoosstrasse 99, 8052 Zurich, Switzerland 26. Pfizer AS, Drammensveien 288, 0283 Oslo, Norway 27. BioNTech SE, An der Goldgrube 12, 55131 Mainz, Germany 28. BioNTech Europe GmbH, An der Goldgrube 12, 55131 Mainz, Germany 29. BioNTech Manufacturing GmbH, Emil-von-Behring-Straße 76, 35041 Marburg, Germany 30. BioNTech Manufacturing Marburg GmbH, Emil-von-Behring-Straße 76, 35041 Marburg, Germany Defendants 1-26, collectively also “Pfizer”, are represented by Christian Dekoninck, Geert Theuws, Pauline Springorum, Thomas Witte, Simon Cohen, Ed Vickers and others (Winston Taylor) Defendants 27-30, together also “BioNTech” are represented by Tess Waldron, Penny Gilbert, Joel Coles, Peter FitzPatrick, Daniel Brown, Gabriella Simon and Abraham Darby-Zaier and others (Powell Gilbert) Defendants 1-30 are collectively referred to as “defendants” or as “PBNT”. Cooperative counsel for PBNT include Theo Blomme and Christine Kanz (Hoyng Rokh Monegier) and Georg Schnappauf and Sebastian Höpfner (Zwicher Schnappauf & Partner) The patent at issue: Patent no. Proprietor/s EP2590626 GlaxoSmithKline Biologicals SA The panel/deciding judge The composition of the panel is as follows: Edger Brinkman presiding judge Stefan Schilling legally qualified judge Martin Schmidt technically qualified judge Margot Kokke judge-rapporteur This order is issued by the judge-rapporteur (“JR”). LANGUAGE OF PROCEEDINGS: English GROUNDS 1. The JR ordered an online interim conference (IC), which IC was held via Webex on 17 June 2026 at 10 a.m. The Hague time. The IC was audio-recorded (Rule 106 RoP) and the recording has been uploaded in the file. Pursuant to Rule 105.5 of the Rules of Procedure (RoP), following the IC, the JR shall issue an order setting out the decisions taken. 2. In addition to the JR and the TQJ, the following individuals attended the IC: 3 On behalf of claimant GSK Assistant General Counsel and VP Global Head of Patent Litigation as well as the following representatives: Carlos van Staveren, Tjibbe Douma, Nicole Jadeja, Emilia Zalewska , Marijn van der Wal, Laurens Buijtelaar and Will Smith On behalf of defendants PBNT 3. During the IC the case was discussed based on topics suggested beforehand by the Court and by the parties. The JR expressed her objective to streamline, prepare and focus the proceedings for the oral hearing (“OH”). Thereby all topics suggested by the parties were addressed. The relevant decisions taken at the IC are listed in the operative part of this order. 4. For the purposes of setting the value of the case, the two counterclaims which are materially identical and were both filed by all defendants, shall be considered as one. The values are set as agreed by the parties. This does not recovery of the court fees for both counterclaims. 5. The parties were instructed to materially/technically focus the case for the OH by selecting the most promising validity attacks and auxiliary requests (ARs) as set out in the operative part of this order at E-G. 6. The parties were also asked to consider whether the counterclaims for revocation (CC) might be considered conditional on the establishment of infringement. This would mean that, if the infringement action were not successful, the condition upon which the CC’s were (considered to be) filed, would not be fulfilled (cf. i.a. LD Mannheim decision of 5 December 2025, UPC CFI 414/2024, Centripedal v Keysight, LD Munich panel 1 decision of 13 January 2026, UPC CFI 628/2024, Emboline v AorticLab and LD Munich panel 2 decision of 11 March 2026, UPC CFI 180/2025, BFexaQC v Nvidia). The parties are requested to inform the court as soon as/if a decision on this has been reached. In any case, this will not prevent the CCs from being heard. In view of diverging decisions with respect to the consequences of such conditionality for the recoverable costs of the counterclaim by different panels, the JR pointed out that this can in any case be resolved by the parties in a cost agreement. The JR also expressed the preliminary opinion (but this is to be decided by the panel decision) that such conditionality should not imply that costs related to the CC cannot be considered. On the other hand, in the 4 present cases, the maximum ceiling for recoverable costs is reached already with the value set for the infringement action. 7. Procedurally, the case was prepared for the oral hearing by deciding on mutual objections of the parties as much as possible, and by addressing and mostly deciding outstanding applications, after having (further) heard the parties. The orders taken concerning the procedural focusing of the case, are reflected in parts H-N of the operative part. 8. GSK’s objections/comments in its submission of 20 April 2026 (rejoinder CC/reply AtA) to PBNT’s allegedly late filed exhibit and arguments in PBNT’s submission of 19 March 2026, are rejected in so far as PBNT’s submissions are in compliance with the guidelines of the CoA1. This provisionally seems to be the case for most ‘objections’, with the possible exception of what is objected to in paragraphs 123, 125 and 144, which seem to concern new validity attacks. It remains to be seen whether these will be relied on. 9. The fourteen new prior art documents submitted as exhibits PBNT C72-83 by PBNT with its last Rejoinder (to the AtA, dated 20 May 2026) are not permitted into the proceedings, with the following possible exception. Together with its submission indicated at L. below, PBNT can indicate one document, if any, that it wishes to maintain, indicating why this is relevant and was filed in response to GSK’s reply AtA and could thus not have been filed earlier (300 words max). In case one exhibit is maintained, GSK, if deemed necessary, can file a concise material reaction in writing to this exhibit, if any, one week later (300 words max). The parts of PBNT’s Rejoinder AtA pertaining to the rejected documents, will not be considered. 10. Regarding exhibit PBNT 84 submitted with PBNT’s unsolicited and rejected R.9/36 submission of 8 June 2026 (see K below), it is unclear when this came, or could have come, to PBNT’s attention. Parties are permitted to clarify their opposing position regarding the confidential status of this document as set out in C. of the operative part. 11. Regarding GSK’s R.176 Application, requesting the general hearing /cross-examination of several experts, the JR stated that the R.176 order of 7 May 2026 in case UPC CFI 616/2025 (which is known to all parties) reflects the panel’s opinion, also in this case. A general right for cross-examination of experts is not understood to be encompassed in the procedural rules of the UPC and is not permitted here. It was clarified that, if the panel finds that specific disputed facts need further confirmation or clarification, experts can be questioned with respect to those specific facts by the Court (reference was made to R.112.2(b) RoP) This is envisioned to take place as part of the oral hearing. Therefore, the experts are expected to attend the oral hearing in person or online, or in any case be stand-by during the day, to answer questions from the Court if necessary. Experts will not be officially summoned to the oral hearing, but the Court can draw conclusions if they are unable to answer questions. Experts will be questioned if the panel deems this to be necessary. The Court considers R. 181.2(a) and (b), cited below, to apply to the party experts, also in the absence of official summons: 181.2 (a): an expert has a duty to assist the court impartially on matters relevant to his area of expertise which overrides any duty to the party retaining him; (b) an expert is to be independent and objective, and shall not act as an advocate for any party to the proceedings. 12. PBNT’s application dated 23 February 2026 was discussed. This application was filed as a R.9 application in these proceedings and which was understood to be (also) a R.262.1 application 1 Inter alia CoA decision of 29 December 2025 (VMR v NJOY) 5 in UPC-CFI 616/2025 (case 616). With the application PBNT requested (resp. was understood to request) access to all pleadings and evidence filed in case 616, alternatively/additionally requesting the Court to declare that PBNT is entitled without permission of the Court to provide all written pleadings and evidence in these proceedings to the defendants in case 616, or that the court grant such permission (except for confidential information). GSK opposed the application. Moderna, defendants in the 616 case concerning the same patent, did not file a corresponding request or application. The JR explained that the request will be rejected on the grounds of the protection of the integrity of proceedings, together with the combination of the timing of the request and the front-loaded nature of UPC proceedings The integrity of proceedings could, according to the JR, be considerably compromised if defendants were allowed access to each other’s submissions. The 616-case is an infringement action, wherein infringement of the same patent is asserted as in the present infringement action. However, infringement is obviously asserted by different (groups of) defendants with different products. PBNT has no specific interest to access pleadings and evidence regarding the 616 infringement case. Regarding the counterclaim for revocation, PBNT is also not considered to have a specific interest, due to the timing of the request, filed after the filing of the counterclaims in this action. This implies that they will not be able to derive new validity attacks from the 616- counterclaim-action (pending as UPC CFI 1439/2025) due to the front-loaded nature of the procedure. The argument that GSK may present the prior art differently in the parallel case, is not considered a specific interest. It is possible and permitted for GSK to rely on different arguments in response to a factually different infringement and revocation case. Both individual infringement and counterclaim actions, furthermore, are exceptionally voluminous, involving 16 (case 616) and 31 (case 620) parties respectively. 13. Practicalities regarding the OH were discussed, resulting in the orders/guidelines at O-T of the operative part of this order. 14. The parties jointly requested the Court to permit the attendance of stenographers in the court room during the OH, in this case as well as in case UPC CFI 616/2025, in order to provide a verbatim transcript thereof for internal use. The JR sees no objection to this provided the conditions set out by the CoA in Amazon v InterDigital2 , are met (i.e. private, no official status etc.). ORDERS AND DECISIONS THE COURT A. Sets the value of the infringement action/proceedings of is set at EUR 50,000,001.00. B. Sets the value of the counterclaim-actions/proceedings is set at EUR 50,000,001.00 for UPC CFI 1509 and 1511/2025 together. C. Orders the following further submissions: - clarification of the confidentiality status of Cayman 2024 (PBNT 84) in the US proceedings by Friday 19 June 2026 at the latest (maximum 150 words; both parties, see 10 above) 2 Decision of 30 March 202 6 - (updated) comprehensive overviews of exhibits (leaving out those that were not permitted, as indicated above) (both parties). - Insofar as the submissions and exhibits submitted via Tresorit are not OCRed, new OCRed version shall be provided (via Tresorit) (both parties) - a submission containing only the latest version of the relief sought (both parties). D. Stipulates that the further submissions at C., apart from the first item mentioned, must be made within one week from today (i.e. on or before 24 June 2026). E. Orders that, also on or before 24 June 2026, PBNT shall clarify on which most promising validity attacks it intends to rely at the oral proceedings to focus the case, specifying the parts of its submissions relevant thereto. During the IC a maximum of five attacks was mentioned as (just) manageable. F. Orders GSK to submit, at the latest one week after PBNT submitted the aforementioned at E, a list of auxiliary requests (“ARs”) on which it intends to rely, specifying the parts of its submissions relevant thereto. Five-ten (maximum) is suggested as a reasonable number. For each AR GSK shall indicate to which specific validity attack the AR is a response. G. Orders PBNT to inform the court, at the latest one week after GSK submitted the list mentioned at F. above, on which additional validity attacks, if any, it intends to rely against the remaining ARs, specifying the parts of its submissions relevant thereto. One per AR is suggested as reasonable, where PBNT is urged to rely on the same prior art as for (claim 1 of) the patent as granted where possible. H. Rejects GSK’s objections in its submission of 20 April 2026 (rejoinder CC/reply AtA) to PBNT’s allegedly late filed exhibit and arguments in PBNT’s submission of 19 March 2026, in so far as PBNT’s submissions are not in compliance with the guidelines clarified by the CoA (see 8 above). I. Stipulates that GSK’s Exhibits cryo-TEM images (BB156A-B) and the corresponding statements in Forrest’2nd declaration (BB153A, paragraphs 7.1-7.4), are not permitted into the proceedings. GSK will submit a revised or redacted version of the declaration (within one week from today). GSK and PBNT shall indicate within two weeks from today the parts of the 13 April 2026 submission where the rejected exhibits and topics are discussed. These parts shall not be considered by the Court. J. Stipulates that the fourteen new prior art documents submitted as exhibits PBNT C72-83 by PBNT with its last Rejoinder (to the AtA, dated 20 May 2026) are not permitted into the proceedings, with the possible exception of one exhibit to be specified (see 9 above). K. PBNT’s submission filed as a R.36/ R.9 application on 8 June 2026 is not permitted into the proceedings; the same applies to the material response of GSK thereto. The admission of exhibit PBNT 84 will be decided separately (se 10 above). L. PBNT’s R.9 application dated 31 October 205 is considered withdrawn. M. GSK’s R.176 application dated 23 April 2026, is dismissed. N. PBNT’s R.9/262.1 application dated 23 February 2026 is dismissed. 7 O. The court confirmed that the oral hearing will be conducted on one day, on 1 September 2026, start time to be confirmed. P. Stipulates that at the oral hearing the maximum pleading time for each side (all defendants considered as one side) is 120 minutes, with an additional 30 minute rebuttal each side. All issues are to be pleaded together, however, with GSK starting on all issues apart from validity (and ARs). The suggested schedule is as follows: - GSK all issues apart from validity: 60’ - PBNT all issues (including response to GSK’ pleadings) : 120’ - GSK validity (including response to PBNT’s pleadings) and rebuttal other issues : 60’+ 15’ = 75’ - PBNT rebuttal: 30’ - GSK rebuttal validity: 15’ Parties are free to vary the time spent on topics, provided the total pleading times set above are respected. Extra time will be added for interruptions by the Court. Q. Stipulates that a PowerPoint presentation is permitted at the oral hearing under the condition that these do not include any new information. Such presentations must be exchanged and sent to the Court at the latest twenty four hours before the start of the oral hearing. Dutch style pleading notes are also permitted under the conditions discussed (inter alia as a ‘transcript’-aid to the court only, no legal status). R. Orders the parties to submit a specified overview of the costs that they will seek to recover to the court and to the other party two days before the start of the oral hearing, unless parties reach an agreement on the costs (which they are urged to do; the maximum reimbursable amount based on the case values is EUR 2,000,000). S. Permits the attendance of stenographers in the court room during the OH in order to make a private verbatim transcript, under the conditions set out at 14 above. T. Stipulates that the parties must liaise directly with the sub-registry regarding the number of seats required for the OH.Margot Elsa Kokke Digitally signed by Margot Elsa Kokke Date: 2026.06.17 19:42:12 +02'00'

Key Holdings

• Identical counterclaims are treated as one for court fees purposes.
• Parties are directed to prioritize and limit the number of validity attacks and auxiliary requests.
• Parties are encouraged to consider making counterclaims conditional.
• Agreement on costs or detailed cost specification is required before the oral hearing.
• Interim conferences are crucial for efficient case management, enabling complex cases to be handled in a one-day oral hearing.

Tags

• Interim Conference
• Case Management
• Costs
• Counterclaims
• Patent Validity
• Evidence

Related Rules

• Rule 1 – Application of the Rules and general principles of interpretation

Related Cases

• UPC_CFI_620/2025; UPC_CFI_1509/2-025; UPC_CFI1511/2025 – GSK v Pfizer
• UPC_CFI_620/2025; UPC_CFI_1509/2025; UPC_CFI_1511/2025 – GSK v Pfizer