UPC CFI, LD The Hague, 18 February 2026 : Leave to amend claim granted - no need to amend claim, further arguments permitted.

Leave to amend claim granted. (Rule 263 RoP) Application to admit allegedly late-filed submissions and arguments dismissed.  (Rule 9 RoP). 

There is no need for a limitation of an injunction to specific infringing products based on what is claimed. (Rule 263 RoP).

In the present case, GSK, requested general injunctive relief to prohibit infringement of claim 1 and several other claims, where the specific products are mentioned as examples, but the requested relief is not limited to: “A liposome (…) such as the Infringing Products (the Spikevax Infringing Products and mRESVIA Infringing Products individually and jointly), and/or further versions or variants thereof,”[emphasis added]. 

Relief against other products, in particular new versions or variants that already fall within the scope of protection of the claims, already fall within the request from the start of the proceedings. 

Thus, there is no need to amend the claim to include the new allegedly infringing product “mNEXSPIKE”.

The front-loaded character of the proceedings does not require a claimant to anticipate every defence/argument of defendants in its SoC. (Rule 9 (1) RoP).

Arguments and further evidence submitted by GSK in its Reply, are permitted as they mostly further expand on arguments GSK already made in the SoC. 

IPPT20260218, UPC CFI, LD The Hague, GlaxoSmithKline v Moderna