2026-07-01 - LD The Hague - CureVac Manufacturing v. Moderna - UPC-CFI-0001407/2026

Aktenzeichen:
UPC-CFI-0001407/2026
Datum:
Spruchkörper:
Court of First Instance - The Hague (NL) Local Division
Art:
Order
Parteien:
CureVac Manufacturing GmbH v. Moderna Inc. et al

Kernaussage: The Hague Local Division (judge-rapporteur alone) dismissed CureVac's Rule 190 RoP application to compel Moderna to produce confidential manufacturing data (CTD sections and technical data sheets) as premature and disproportionate.

2026-07-01 - LD The Hague - CureVac Manufacturing v. Moderna - UPC-CFI-0001407/2026
Eine Entscheidung, mehrere Aktenzeichen

Das Gericht hat diese Verfahren zusammen entschieden und dasselbe Dokument in jedem davon eingestellt. Jeder Eintrag unten ist ein eigener vollwertiger Registereintrag.

🏛️Court of First Instance - The Hague (NL) Local Division• Order
📅2026-07-01
🔢UPC-CFI-0001407/2026
Parteien & Vertreter
Kläger / Berufungsführer
CureVac Manufacturing GmbH
Judith KRENS
Beklagter / Berufungsbeklagter
Moderna, Inc.
Moderna Netherlands B.V.
Moderna Switzerland GmbH
Moderna Biotech Spain SL
ModernaTX, Inc.
Moderna Poland Sp. z o.o.
Moderna Biotech UK Ltd
SAS Moderna France
Moderna Germany GmbH
Moderna Italy S.r.l.
Moderna Norway AS
Moderna Sweden AB
Moderna Portugal Unipessoal LDA
Rutger KLEEMANS
⚖️Infringement Action
🌐English

notable
The Hague Local Division (judge-rapporteur alone) dismissed CureVac's Rule 190 RoP application to compel Moderna to produce confidential manufacturing data (CTD sections and technical data sheets) as premature and disproportionate. Applying the cumulative Winnow v Orbisk framework (Art. 59(1) UPCA, Rule 190 RoP, Art. 6 Enforcement Directive) as developed by the Court of Appeal in Oppo v Panasonic, the court held the application admissible — a substantiated R.190 request filed on the same day as the statement of claim is a filing 'during the written procedure' under R.190.2 RoP — but found the necessity and proportionality condition unmet at this stage: before Moderna's Statement of Defence it was not yet clear which facts would be disputed, so ordering disclosure of a confidential process was not necessary or proportionate. The dismissal is without prejudice; the assessment may differ once the scope of the factual dispute is known. In the parallel infringement case the court confirmed the parties' agreed R.9.3 RoP alignment of a uniform deemed service date (1 June 2026) and harmonised deadlines for all 13 defendants.

Entscheidung teilen

Weitere Navigation
Entscheidungen
Rechtstexte
Analysen

Zu Sammlung hinzufügen

0 Einträge hinzufügen zu:

Anmeldung

Registrieren