2026-08-21 - LD The Hague - GlaxoSmithKline v. Pfizer et al. - UPC_CFI_620/2025
- Aktenzeichen:
- UPC_CFI_620/2025
- Datum:
- Spruchkörper:
- Court of First Instance - The Hague (NL) Local Division
- Art:
- Order
- Parteien:
- GlaxoSmithKline Biologicals SA v. C.P. Pharmaceuticals International C.V., Pfizer Export B.V., Pfizer B.V., Pfizer Manufacturing Belgium N.V., Pfizer Service Company B.V./S.r.l., Pfizer S.A./N.V., Pfizer Luxembourg SARL, Pfizer Inc., Pfizer Corporation Austria Gesellschaft m.b.H, Pfizer ApS, Pfizer Oy, Pfizer S.A.S., Pfizer Pharma GmbH, Pfizer S.r.l., Laboratórios Pfizer, Lda., Pfizer Romania S.R.L., Pfizer AB, Pfizer, spol. S.r.o., Pfizer Hellas A.E., Pfizer, S.L., Pfizer Croatia d.o.o., Pfizer Gyógyszerkereskedelmi Kft., Pfizer Polska Sp. Z.o.o., Pfizer Trading Polska Sp. Z.o.o., Pfizer AG, Pfizer AS, BioNTech SE, BioNTech Europe GmbH, BioNTech Manufacturing GmbH, BioNTech Manufacturing Marburg GmbH
Kernaussage: Ahead of the oral hearing, the judge-rapporteur of The Hague Local Division ruled on submissions made after the interim conference.
2026-08-21 - LD The Hague - GlaxoSmithKline
v.
Pfizer et al. - UPC_CFI_620/2025
notable
Ahead of the oral hearing, the judge-rapporteur of The Hague Local Division ruled on submissions made after the interim conference. She held that the threshold for admitting new documents once all written submissions are filed is high, because the accelerated and front-loaded nature of UPC proceedings makes late admission a risk to the fairness of the trial and to speed, but admitted three late exhibits on the particular circumstances, allowing comment on them at the oral hearing instead of by further written pleading. Both parties' R. 36 RoP applications for a further written exchange failed: one because the pleadings were filed with the request instead of permission being sought, the other because it was filed after the written procedure had closed. R. 9.1 RoP, by contrast, is not confined to the written procedure, so the exhibit sought under the inadmissible R. 36 application was still admitted. The Court further held that an interim-conference direction to give a comprehensive overview of the relief sought is not leave to amend the claims, which requires an application under R. 263 RoP, and it defined an inventive-step attack as a realistic starting point combined with one further document or the common general knowledge.