Pfizer wins pause on Moderna's 19 patent lawsuit
By Blake Brittain
April 12 (Reuters) -Moderna's MRNA.O patent lawsuit claiming Pfizer PFE.N and BioNTech 22UAy.DE copied its COVID-19 vaccine technology will be put on hold while the U.S. Patent Office determines whether two of the three Moderna patents at issue are valid, a Massachusetts federal court said on Friday.
U.S. District Judge Richard Stearns stayed the closely watched case over Moderna's objections after determining that the Patent Office's rulings would "simplify" the patent-infringement lawsuit, according to an entry on the court's docket.
A Moderna spokesperson said in a statement that the company was disappointed with the pause but "continues to believe in the strength and validity of its patents." Representatives for Pfizer and BioNTech did not immediately respond to requests for comment.
Moderna accused Pfizer and BioNTech's vaccine of violating its patent rights in messenger-RNA technology in a 2022 lawsuit. The case is one of several brought by biotech companies seeking patent royalties from the blockbuster COVID-19 vaccines.
Moderna earned $6.7 billion in revenue from its vaccine Spikevax last year, while Pfizer made $11.2 billion from sales of its vaccine Comirnaty. Sales of both vaccines declined significantly last year from 2022.
Defendants frequently turn to the U.S. Patent Office's Patent Trial and Appeal Board, which reconsiders the validity of patents issued by the office, as an alternative path to fend off infringement claims. Pfizer and BioNTech asked the board to review two Moderna patents last year, arguing they were "unimaginably broad" and cover a "basic idea that was known long before" their invention date of 2015.
The board agreed to review both patents last month. Review proceedings generally last between one year and 18 months, and Pfizer asked the Massachusetts court to pause Moderna's infringement case during the office proceedings.
Moderna opposed Pfizer's request, arguing a stay would be "highly prejudicial" and unnecessarily delay an infringement trial that Stearns has said could be held in autumn or early winter.
Stearns granted Pfizer's request on Friday. The judge said that the board review would streamline the infringement case and that a pause would not hurt Moderna financially or affect its ability to present evidence at trial.
The case is ModernaTX Inc v. Pfizer Inc, U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts, 1:22-cv-11378.
For Moderna: William Lee, Emily Whelan, Kevin Prussia, Andrew Danford and Amy Wigmore of Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale & Dorr
For Pfizer: Thomas Selby, Stan Fisher and Kathryn Kayali of Williams & Connolly
For BioNTech: Bruce Wexler, Eric Dittmann, Young Park and Ashley Mays-Williams of Paul Hastings
Read more:
Moderna sues Pfizer/BioNTech for patent infringement over COVID vaccine
Pfizer, BioNTech challenge Moderna COVID-19 vaccine patents at US Patent Office
Reporting by Blake Brittain in Washington
Related Assets
Latest News
Disclaimer: The XM Group entities provide execution-only service and access to our Online Trading Facility, permitting a person to view and/or use the content available on or via the website, is not intended to change or expand on this, nor does it change or expand on this. Such access and use are always subject to: (i) Terms and Conditions; (ii) Risk Warnings; and (iii) Full Disclaimer. Such content is therefore provided as no more than general information. Particularly, please be aware that the contents of our Online Trading Facility are neither a solicitation, nor an offer to enter any transactions on the financial markets. Trading on any financial market involves a significant level of risk to your capital.
All material published on our Online Trading Facility is intended for educational/informational purposes only, and does not contain – nor should it be considered as containing – financial, investment tax or trading advice and recommendations; or a record of our trading prices; or an offer of, or solicitation for, a transaction in any financial instruments; or unsolicited financial promotions to you.
Any third-party content, as well as content prepared by XM, such as: opinions, news, research, analyses, prices and other information or links to third-party sites contained on this website are provided on an “as-is” basis, as general market commentary, and do not constitute investment advice. To the extent that any content is construed as investment research, you must note and accept that the content was not intended to and has not been prepared in accordance with legal requirements designed to promote the independence of investment research and as such, it would be considered as marketing communication under the relevant laws and regulations. Please ensure that you have read and understood our Notification on Non-Independent Investment. Research and Risk Warning concerning the foregoing information, which can be accessed here.
