Judge Trims Moderna’s Defenses In COVID Patent Suit

By Editorial Team

A federal judge in Delaware has ruled against Moderna in a patent lawsuit related to COVID vaccines. The judge decided that Moderna cannot use obviousness as a defense in the case, as the company had already employed this defense in previous Patent Trial and Review Board proceedings. The ruling stated that Moderna had provided expert opinions to support its claim that the patents in question do not adequately teach about the claimed invention.

The decision is a setback for Moderna in the ongoing legal battle with a rival vaccine developer. The ruling limits Moderna’s ability to defend itself in the patent infringement case and could have significant implications for the outcome of the lawsuit.

The lawsuit, filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware, involves several patents related to lipid formulations for nucleic acid delivery, including patents numbered 8,492,359, 9,504,651, 11,141,378, and 9,364,435. The case has attracted the attention of several prominent law firms, including Goodwin Procter, Kirkland & Ellis, Morris Nichols, Morrison & Foerster, Shaw Keller, Sullivan & Cromwell, and Williams & Connolly.

Companies involved in the lawsuit include Arbutus Biopharma Corp. and Moderna Inc. The ruling by the federal judge is expected to impact the ongoing legal proceedings and could shape the future of COVID vaccine development and intellectual property rights in the pharmaceutical industry.