GSK's mRNA Patent Showdown Against Moderna, BioNTech and Pfizer Opens at The Hague UPC
核心洞察
GSK's infringement claims over mRNA delivery patent EP 2 590 626 will be heard at The Hague Local Division of the Unified Patent Court on 1 and 3 September, targeting Moderna, BioNTech and Pfizer.
The dispute stems from GSK's decision to enforce its mRNA patent portfolio against the manufacturers of the successful Covid-19 (搜索) vaccines, with parallel litigation also underway in the US, Ireland and the UK.
The Hague has emerged as the leading UPC venue for pharmaceutical patent litigation, handling roughly a quarter of all such cases despite accounting for only about 12% of overall filings.
The Local Division The Hague of the Unified Patent Court (UPC) will this week hear the first showdown between GSK and the leading manufacturers of Covid-19 (搜索) vaccines over mRNA delivery technology. On 1 September, the panel will hear GSK's infringement claim against Moderna (case ID: UPC_CFI_616/2025), followed on 3 September by the parallel case against BioNTech and Pfizer (case ID: UPC_CFI_620/2025). Both proceedings concern EP 2 590 626, which protects liposomes with lipids having an advantageous pKa value for RNA delivery.
The legal panel is led by presiding judge Edger Brinkman and Margot Kokke, joined by Stefan Schilling from the Hamburg local division, with Martin Schmidt sitting as technically qualified judge.
From Cooperation to Conflict
The dispute traces back to GSK's decision to enforce its mRNA-related patent portfolio against the manufacturers of the successful Covid-19 (搜索) vaccines. GSK filed the lawsuit over EP 626, as well as lawsuits based on EP 4 226 941 and EP 4 066 856, at the local division The Hague in July 2025. The claims regarding EP 626 contain detailed long-arm jurisdictional requests, targeting entities of Moderna and Pfizer in the UPC territory as well as in Norway, Poland, Switzerland and Spain, and in the UK (Moderna) and the US (Pfizer).
The local division The Hague originally planned to hear GSK's claims regarding EP 941 and EP 856 on 30 September but postponed the hearings. The local division is awaiting the written grounds of an EPO revocation decision before deciding whether to stay the proceedings entirely until validity has been clarified.
GSK's litigation campaign also extends beyond the UPC. In April 2024, GSK sued BioNTech and Pfizer at the US District Court of Delaware. The company also filed a parallel infringement action against both opponents in Ireland based on the same patents. BioNTech and Pfizer struck back in London, filing a joint revocation action against the three GSK patents at the UK High Court. It is not known whether Moderna has taken a similar step. Until 2021, EP 626 was the subject of an opposition before the EPO, but was ultimately upheld by the Boards of Appeal.
The CureVac Settlement and Its Limits
Originally, the mRNA patent wars in Europe involved further parties. CureVac, GSK's cooperation partner in mRNA vaccines, had initiated litigation against BioNTech in Germany in summer 2022, with BioNTech and Pfizer countering in the US.
That dispute ended in July when CureVac, BioNTech and Pfizer announced a settlement in the US, alongside BioNTech's announced acquisition of CureVac. As part of the arrangement, BioNTech agreed to pay GSK $370 million and a 1% royalty on US sales of the licensed products, with additional payments following the acquisition's completion. However, GSK expressly reserved its own patent enforcement rights, stating that "the settlement does not impact GSK's enforcement of its own patents against Pfizer and BioNTech in the U.S. and in Europe." The Hague hearings are now the first opportunity to test GSK's claims on the merits before the UPC.
A Broader mRNA Litigation Landscape
GSK's claims are not the only mRNA cases to go before the UPC. Arbutus and Genevant have once again filed claims relating to mRNA patents with the UPC's local division The Hague, this time targeting the Comirnaty Covid-19 (搜索) vaccine from BioNTech and Pfizer. Last year, the two companies filed two claims against Moderna at the The Hague local division as part of a global litigation campaign, but the parties reached a settlement in March 2026.
Another UPC battle over mRNA is currently pending in Munich between Promosome and BioNTech and Pfizer. In July, the Munich local division dismissed Promosome's infringement claim and ruled that the patent was invalid, with an appeal likely.
The Hague's Leading Role in Pharma Patent Litigation
Three years after the Unified Patent Court opened its doors, pharmaceutical patent litigation has become an increasingly visible part of the UPC landscape, and one venue stands out. Around a quarter of the pharmaceutical patent cases have been brought before the Local Division The Hague — more than before any other division. That may not be surprising when two of its legally qualified judges are graduated biochemists.
Looking only at the Local and Regional Divisions, The Hague accounts for roughly one in three pharmaceutical cases. Even when including the Milan Central Division, The Hague still leads with a quarter of all UPC pharmaceutical patent cases, followed by the Milan central division at around 17%, the Local Division Munich at 15% and the Local Division Düsseldorf at 10%.
The Hague is not the UPC's largest division by volume. In Munich, Düsseldorf and Mannheim, more first-instance cases were filed than in The Hague. The Hague sits fourth, at roughly 12% of filings, yet it takes a quarter of the pharmaceutical work — roughly double its share of the court's overall caseload.
Cross-Border Reach and Legal Teams
The cross-border reach at the UPC cuts both ways: a single action can secure a patentee pan-European relief, or expose a manufacturer to pan-European liability. After the CJEU's judgment in BSH v Electrolux, the scope for cross-border patent enforcement in Europe widened, and the Court of Appeal's decision in Fujifilm v Kodak addressed the UPC's jurisdiction over European patent designations outside the UPC territory. A single dispute can now have consequences well beyond the UPC's territorial borders.
GSK relies on Bird & Bird for the UPC proceedings, with Dutch partners Tjibbe Douma and Carlos van Staveren assisting the pharmaceutical company. Moderna has retained lawyer Gertjan Kuipers from Hogan Lovells and patent attorneys Thomas Wolter and Matthew Naylor of Mewburn Ellis. BioNTech has retained Tess Waldron and Joel Coles from UK firm Powell Gilbert, alongside a Dutch-German team of Hoyng ROKH Monegier led by Christine Kanz and Theo Blomme. Pfizer relies on its regular advisors from Winston Taylor, with Brussels-based partner Christian Dekoninck leading the UPC cases.