2026-09-14 - LD The Hague - GlaxoSmithKline v. Moderna - UPC_CFI_616/2025
- Aktenzeichen:
- UPC_CFI_616/2025
- Datum:
- Spruchkörper:
- Court of First Instance - The Hague (NL) Local Division
- Art:
- Order
- Parteien:
- GlaxoSmithKline Biologicals SA v. Moderna Netherlands B.V., Moderna Biotech Spain, S.L., Moderna Biotech UK Limited, Moderna Biotech Distributor UK Ltd, Moderna Switzerland GmbH, Moderna Poland SP. Z.O.O., Moderna, Inc., ModernaTX, Inc., Moderna Belgium S.R.L., Moderna France SASU, Moderna Germany GmbH, Moderna Italy S.R.L., Moderna Portugal Unipessoal LDA, Moderna Sweden AB, Moderna Norway A/S
Kernaussage: Ten days after the oral hearing in the GSK v Moderna infringement action and counterclaim for revocation, the Hague Local Division panel revoked, under R.
2026-09-14 - LD The Hague - GlaxoSmithKline
v.
Moderna - UPC_CFI_616/2025
notable
Ten days after the oral hearing in the GSK v Moderna infringement action and counterclaim for revocation, the Hague Local Division panel revoked, under R.335 RoP, the judge-rapporteur's interim-conference order that had rejected GSK's late-filed cryo-TEM reports of the accused products. The rejection had been correct when made, but the oral hearing showed that the location of the mRNA and the nature of the aqueous core in the accused products had become the centre of the infringement dispute, so the evidence had matured to be of significance and fairness required its admission [7]. The panel found the procedural basis in its case management powers under R.334 RoP in combination with R.335 RoP: R.331.3 RoP read with R.335 RoP permits the panel to revoke or vary an earlier case management order at any stage, including the oral phase [10]. The right to be heard under Art. 76(2) UPCA is safeguarded by a concise written explanation from GSK and a written response from Moderna, without adjournment and without moving the R.118.6 RoP target date for the decision [11]-[12]. The panel held that revoking the judge-rapporteur's order does not fall within R.114 RoP, and that if R.114 applied, the readily available evidence causing no delay would constitute an exceptional case [13].