UPC_CoA_146/2026; UPC_CoA_147/2026; UPC_CoA_148/2026 – Promosome v BioNTech

Expert Commentary

Extensions? Facts 1. The appellants, Promosome, filed a request in all three of their appeals for a one month extension for filing the Statements of Grounds of Appeal. 2. They cited “a heavy professional workload” as exceptional circumstance. 3. They further referred to the Bavarian summer school holiday period and the Bavarian autumn school holidays. The JR The JR refused the application. Comment 1. This request makes me laugh! Does this representative really think that a heavy professional workload and school holidays are a reason for an extension? 2. The same counsel prepared the case at first instance, so we may assume that they know the case inside out. Now they have four months to explain why they do not agree with the decision. One very busy litigator can easily work (I speak from my own experience) at least 600 to 800 hours during such a period. However, here we do not have one representative working on his own but working in a substantial Dutch/German law firm. So, as the JR also remarks, it is all a matter of organization. 3. There is a lack of schoolteachers, so if the representative does not want to work during the Bavarian school holidays, I advise them to become schoolteacher. 4. School holidays may even be a help! Teenage children can earn a bit of money by helping in the office with copying, making coffee and, in the case of the brighter ones, perhaps even do some research with the help of AI. 5. Let this all be a lesson for representatives: do not bother the UPC with this kind of requests.

Full Decision Text

ORDER of the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court issued on 12 October 2026 APPELLANTS 1) Promosome LLC, 48 Gurley Road, 06902 Stamford, Connecticut, USA 2) The Scripps Research Institute, 10550 North Torrey Pines Road, La Jolla, California 92037, USA both represented by Georg Andreas Rauh, Vossius & Brinkhof UPC Litigators RESPONDENTS 1) BioNTech SE, An der Goldgrube 12, 55131 Mainz, Germany 2) BioNTech Manufacturing GmbH, An der Goldgrube 12, 55131 Mainz, Germany 3) BioNTech Manufacturing Marburg GmbH, Emil-von-Bering-Straße 76, 35041 Marburg, Germany 4) BioNTech Innovative Manufacturing Services GmbH, Vollmersbachstraße 66, 55743 Idar-Oberstein, Germany 5) BioNTech Europe GmbH, An der Goldgrube 12, c/o BioNTech SE, 55131 Mainz, Germany 6) Pfizer Manufacturing Belgium NV, Rijksweg 12, 2870 Puurs-Sint-Amands, Belgium 7) Pfizer SAS, 23-25 Avenue du Docteur Lannelongue, 75014 Paris, France 8) Pfizer AB, Solnavägen 3h, 11363 Stockholm, Sweden Reference no: UPC-CoA-146/2026 UPC-CoA-147/2026 UPC-CoA-148/2026 2 9) Pfizer, Inc., 66 Hudson Boulevard East, 10001-2192, New York, USA 1), 2), 3), 4) and 5) represented by Christine Kanz, Hoyng Rokh Monegier, 6), 7), 8) and 9) represented by Tobias J. Hessel, Clifford Chance Partnerschaft mbB PATENT AT ISSUE EP 2 401 365 PANEL Panel 1c Klaus Grabinski, presiding judge and president of the Court of Appeal Paolo Catallozzi, legally qualified judge and judge-rapporteur Peter Blok, legally qualified judge DECIDING JUDGE This order has been issued by the judge-rapporteur LANGUAGE OF THE PROCEEDINGS English IMPUGNED DECISION OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE □ Decision of the Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court, Munich Local Division, dated 7 July 2026 □ Numbers attributed by the Court of First Instance: UPC_CFI_846/2024 (infringement action) UPC_CFI_535/2025 (counterclaim for revocation filed by Respondents 1) to 5)) UPC_CFI_485/2025 (counterclaim for revocation filed by Respondents 6) to 9)) FACTS AND PARTIES’ REQUESTS 1. On 1 October 2026, the Appellants lodged three applications under R. 9.3(a) RoP, one in each of the present appeals, seeking a one-month extension, until 9 December 2026, of the deadline for lodging the Statements of grounds of appeal 3 under R. 220.1(a), R. 224.2(a) and R. 226 RoP, which are currently due to expire on 9 November 2026. The applications are based on the same grounds. The appellants argue that the requested extensions are “justified by exceptional circumstances arising from a particularly heavy professional workload of Appellants’ Representative during the relevant time period for preparing the Statement of grounds of appeal, including several deadlines in other matters … as well as several dates for oral hearings … all of which require substantive preparation”. They also submit that the period for filing the Statements of grounds of appeals fell entirely into the Bavarian summer school holiday period and also includes the forthcoming Bavarian autumn school holidays taking place from 2 to 6 November 2026. Finally, they point out that the requested extensions would neither adversely affect the efficient conduct of the appeal proceedings nor unduly prejudice the Respondents. 2. Respondents 1 to 5 oppose the application. They submit that the Appellants have had ample time to prepare their Statements of grounds of appeal and that the professional commitments relied on are either insufficiently substantiated or could have been addressed through appropriate staffing, allocation of resources and case- management measures. They further point out that some of those commitments fall after the expiry of the applicable time period and therefore do not explain why the Appellants are unable to comply with it. In their view, the school holidays and the related absences within the Appellants’ legal team were foreseeable and should have been taken into account in organising the preparation of the Statements of grounds of appeal. Finally, they submit that the Respondents have a legitimate interest in the prompt and efficient resolution of the appeals and that the requested extension would delay the completion of the written procedure, notwithstanding that no date has yet been fixed for the oral hearing.. 3. Respondents 6 to 9 also oppose the application. They submit, in substance, the same arguments as Respondents 1 to 5. In particular, they contend that the Appellants have not identified any specific impediment preventing compliance with the applicable time period or explained why the commitments relied on could not have been accommodated through ordinary staffing, resource-allocation and case- management measures. They likewise submit that the school holidays and routine absences relied on were foreseeable. Finally, they invoke their legitimate interest in the prompt and efficient resolution of the appeals and contend that an extension would unnecessarily delay the further progress of the appeal proceedings. GROUNDS FOR THE ORDER 4. Pursuant to R. 9.3(a) RoP, the Court may, on a reasoned request by a party, extend a time period referred to in the Rules of Procedure or imposed by the Court. 5. In exercising its discretion under that provision, the Court must take account of all the circumstances of the case, including the reasons advanced in support of the 4 request and the consequences of the requested extension for the efficient and fair conduct of the proceedings and for the other parties’ rights of defence. Regard must also be had to the objective, stated in the Preamble to the UPCA, of ensuring expeditious and high-quality decisions, while striking a fair balance between the interests of the parties and taking into account the need for proportionality and flexibility. 6. The circumstances relied on by the Appellants do not justify the requested extensions. 7. The time period for lodging the Statements of grounds of appeal expires on 9 November 2026, four months after the issuance of the impugned decision on 7 July 2026. Moreover, the preparation of those statements does not require the Appellants and their representatives to familiarise themselves with the subject matter of the dispute for the first time, since they were already involved in the proceedings before the Court of First Instance. They have therefore had a substantial period within which to organise the preparation of the Statements of grounds of appeal. 8. The professional commitments identified in the applications do not constitute unforeseen circumstances. Most of the deadlines and hearing dates relied on were known, or could reasonably have been anticipated, sufficiently in advance to enable the Appellants’ representatives to organise their work accordingly. Moreover, some of the commitments identified in the applications fall after the expiry of the applicable time period, and the Appellants have not explained how those later commitments prevent compliance with the deadline of 9 November 2026. 9. Representatives before the Court are expected to organise their professional activities and make appropriate arrangements within their legal teams so as to ensure compliance with procedural time periods. A heavy workload resulting from other pending cases does not, in itself, justify an extension, particularly where the competing professional commitments were foreseeable. The applications do not establish that the matters identified could not have been addressed through appropriate advance planning, allocation of work or other reasonable organisational measures. 10. The same applies to the school holiday periods and the absences within the Appellants’ legal team relied on in the applications. Those circumstances were foreseeable and should have been taken into account when organising the preparation of the Statements of grounds of appeal. 11. The fact that no date has yet been fixed for the oral hearing does not lead to a different conclusion. Procedural time periods serve to ensure the orderly and expeditious progress of the proceedings. Extending the time period for lodging the Statements of grounds of appeal would postpone the completion of the written procedure and, consequently, the point at which the appeals may proceed to their 5 subsequent stages. Regard must also be had to the fact that both groups of Respondents oppose the applications and have invoked their legitimate interest in the prompt and efficient resolution of the appeals. 12. In those circumstances, the Appellants have not established grounds justifying an extension of the time period for lodging the Statements of grounds of appeal. ORDER The applications for an extension of the time period for lodging the Statements of grounds of appeal are rejected. Issued on 12 October 2026. Paolo Catallozzi, legally qualified judge and judge-rapporteur

Key Holdings

• A request for an extension of time to file the Statement of Grounds of Appeal based on heavy professional workload does not constitute an exceptional circumstance.
• School holiday periods (such as Bavarian summer and autumn school holidays) do not justify an extension of time limits.
• Workload and scheduling constraints are matters of internal firm organization and do not warrant extending statutory deadlines before the UPC Court of Appeal.

Tags

• Extensions?
• Extension of time limits
• Statement of Grounds of Appeal
• Exceptional circumstances

Related Cases

• UPC_CFI_846/2024 – Promosome v BioNTech/Pfizer
• UPC_CFI_846/2024; UPC_CFI_485_2025; UPC_CFI_535/2025 – Promosome v BioNTech