The Local Division of the Hague has ruled in favor of GSK in its Unitary Patent Court (UPC) dispute with BioNTech and Pfizer, upholding the patent that covers liposome-based RNA delivery in vaccines.
Court upholds GSK patent against BioNTech and Pfizer
Judge Edger Brinkman found that the defendants infringed European Patent EP 2 590 626. The panel upheld the patent almost in full, revoking only a single claim while the remaining claims survived all five invalidity attacks.
The injunction applies in EPC countries where the patent is valid, except Ireland and the United Kingdom. This includes the 18 UPCA Contracting Member States, seven additional EU members, the Lugano countries Iceland, Norway and Switzerland, and several non-EU EPC states such as Turkey.
The court arrived at this broad territorial scope by invoking the UPC’s developing long-arm jurisdiction. It rejected the defendants’ preliminary objection and concluded that the Pfizer and BioNTech groups operate as an interdependent, integrated and centrally controlled structure, with several entities serving as anchor defendants.
Although the injunction is in place, its enforcement is postponed until the UPC renders a final decision on the validity of EP 2 590 626. Moreover, the order will only take effect if the two companies do not negotiate a licence with GSK within three months of that decision.
The panel explicitly acknowledged GSK’s position as a non-implementer seeking monetary compensation rather than market exclusivity. The defendants must provide detailed sales information dating back to January 2020 and face an interim damages award of 2 million euros. The case value was set at 50 million euros.
Related Post: Osborne Clarke Strengthens German Patent Team with Key Hires
For non-UPCA countries, the injunction is subject to the additional condition that the competent national courts do not hold the patent invalid. This approach builds on recent national case law concerning cross-border enforcement, mirroring a conditional ruling issued a month earlier in the Halozyme vs. MSD dispute.
While the GSK–BioNTech-Pfizer fight continues, the parallel lawsuit against Moderna took a different turn. The court received a request to withdraw the claims, and sources confirm that the two companies settled on 28 October 2026, agreeing to cross-license patents in the infectious-disease field without any monetary exchange.
GSK relies on Bird & Bird, with Dutch partners Tjibbe Douma, Nicole Jadeja and Carlos van Staveren assisting. Moderna retained Gertjan Kuipers of Hogan Lovells and patent attorneys Thomas Wolter and Matthew Naylor of Mewburn Ellis, who also act for the company in EPO opposition proceedings.
BioNTech has engaged Tess Waldron and Joel Coles from Powell Gilbert, complemented by a Dutch-German team from Hoyng ROKH Monegier led by Christine Kanz and Theo Blomme. Pfizer continues to work with Winston Taylor, with Brussels-based partner Christian Dekoninck heading the UPC team.
BioNTech and Pfizer can appeal and have already filed a revocation action at the UK High Court together with parallel proceedings in Ireland. Two additional GSK patents, EP 4226941 and EP 4066856, remain pending before the same local division, with hearings postponed pending EPO revocation proceedings.
Settlement with Moderna and its Scope
Under the agreement, Moderna’s Spikevax, mNEXSPIKE and RSV vaccine mResvia become subject to the cross-licence. The parties also moved to dismiss the US litigation with prejudice.
Related Post: German Court Blocks Polytech Manager’s Arrest in Patent Row
A request to withdraw the claims in the UPC case was lodged shortly after the settlement. The division recorded the withdrawal request but has not yet issued a final order, leaving the procedural status open pending formal closure.
Moderna’s representation includes a pan-European team led by London partners Stephen Bennett and Dan Brook, alongside German partners Felipe Zilly and Andreas von Falck. The Freshfields group, headed by Amsterdam lawyer Rutger Kleemans, also continues to advise the company in national courts.
Pending GSK Patents and Ongoing Appeals
In the UK case, a London-based team led by Simon Cohen is pursuing the revocation claim, supported by senior associates Thomas Witte, Ed Vickers and Paul England. The Irish litigation is being handled by McCann FitzGerald’s Dublin office.
Pfizer’s broader patent strategy involves several counsel firms. A Clifford Chance team represents the company in a separate UPC dispute with Promosone, while Marks & Clerk and Clifford Chance previously advised on the settled RSV-vaccine conflict with GSK.
Bird & Bird, while representing GSK in the UPC, also maintains long-standing relationships with GSK’s former partner CureVac and is handling the parallel Irish proceedings on GSK’s behalf.
Mewburn Ellis continues to act for Moderna in an EPO opposition against GSK’s EP 941 patent, illustrating the overlapping nature of the litigation across European institutions, which involves various companies and patents.
