GlaxoSmithKline Biologicals SA v. C.P. Pharmaceuticals International C.V., Pfizer Export B.V., et al. & BioNTech Europe GmbH et al., UPC CFI Local Division The Hague, 10 November 2026, Case nos. UPC_CFI_620/2025, UPC_CFI_1509/2025, UPC_CFI_1511/2025
RNA vaccines, partial priority, common general knowledge, joint infringement, long- arm jurisdiction
Headnotes
1. Patent on liposomes for RNA vaccine delivery held (mostly) valid and infringed.
2. The claimed range of pKa 5.0-6.8 is not to be interpreted as containing rigid cut-off limits in the present case. The claim, which includes a specific measurement method, should be read together with the description which contains a reference to a measurement imprecision for this method of +-0.2 pKa units.
3. The patent is entitled to partial priorities. The patent may rely on P1 (US830) for the range of pKa 5.0-6.7 (so partially according to G1/15), with date 6 July 2010 and for the claim with upper pKa limit 6.8 on P2 (US 837), dated 31 August 2010.
4. WO799 which discloses DLinDMA (pKa 5.8) is not intervening prior art in the sense of Art. 54.3 EPC for the relevant range of pKa 5.0-6.7. Both the patent (in view of P1) and WO799 can invoke as earliest date 6 July 2010. This means that WO799 does not have a date prior to the (partial) priority date of the patent.
5. For the assessment of novelty, the claims of a prior art patent or patent application form an integral part of its technical disclosure and must be read together with the description. This does however not mean that any combination of (features from) claims of a prior art patent necessarily forms a direct and unambiguous disclosure of the subject-matter of this combination, in particular if the combination implies a(n arbitrary) selection. When the combination is not unambiguously derivable for the skilled person, it is not an enabling
disclosure that anticipates the patent at issue. What matters is whether the skilled person understands that such an assembly of (features from) claims is disclosed and reflects the technical teaching of the document (see EPO BoA T 1658/12).
6. Common General Knowledge (CGK) is not primarily related to a specific document, but rather to a specific knowledge. This knowledge is typically found in textbooks that introduce the field of technology in question. For information to qualify as CGK, it should be present in more than one document. In highly specialised areas, the document may be a review article, handbook or handbook chapter. However, the issue is not whether the information asserted to be CGK is contained in a well-known and widely accepted document. To determine the scope of CGK, the real issue is whether the relevant factual information is so elementary, convincing and consensual that a person skilled in the relevant field will necessarily know it and whether the relevant community has accepted it as an established empirical fact.
7. The interdependent, integrated and centrally controlled operational structure of PBNT means that individual subsidiaries, including the (thirty) Defendants, perform or contribute as joint infringers, to infringing acts which concern various jurisdictions, without the precise scope of the infringing or contributory act of each individual Defendant being distinguishable. Infringing acts in the Relevant Territory are however, jointly attributable to the Defendants.
8. Jurisdiction and territorial scope of the injunction and other measures extend to all EPC countries where the patent is valid, with the exception of Ireland and the UK.
A copy of the Decision can be read here.
