Moderna Fights to Keep Vaccine IP Case Narrow Amid Ongoing Legal Battle

The case centers on allegations brought by Arbutus Biopharma and Genevant Sciences, two biotechnology firms that claim Moderna’s highly successful COVID-19 vaccine, Spikevax, infringes on patents related to lipid nanoparticle (LNP) technology — a delivery method used to transport mRNA into human cells. These patents, the plaintiffs argue, are foundational to the mRNA vaccine platform and were developed well before the pandemic.

In an earlier ruling, the court dismissed or limited several patent claims originally asserted by the plaintiffs. The judge cited a need for efficiency, clarity, and a focused trial. Now, Arbutus and Genevant are attempting to revive or expand those claims, arguing that excluding them could diminish their ability to fully defend their intellectual property and seek appropriate remedies.

Moderna, however, strongly opposes reopening dismissed claims. In its latest legal filing, the company insists the narrowing order was both fair and necessary, especially in a complex case involving technical patents, vast financial stakes, and public health implications.

“Allowing the plaintiffs to reassert previously dismissed claims would not only reverse months of procedural progress but would also undermine judicial efficiency,” Moderna wrote. “The narrowed scope ensures the case remains manageable and fair to both parties.”

The legal battle reflects broader tensions in the biotechnology industry over patent ownership, innovation incentives, and licensing obligations — especially as mRNA technology becomes a pillar of next-generation medicine. Moderna’s vaccine generated billions in revenue during the pandemic, and the company has faced growing scrutiny over whether it owes royalties or licensing fees to earlier technology developers.

For their part, Arbutus and Genevant claim that Moderna’s success would not have been possible without the delivery systems they pioneered. They argue that public health urgency does not excuse what they view as unauthorized use of patented technology.

If the court upholds the current narrowed scope, it could limit potential damages and reduce the overall legal exposure for Moderna. Conversely, if the court sides with the plaintiffs, the case could expand significantly, increasing the complexity and potential financial liability.