Modernatx Inc v Pfizer Ltd & Ors [2025] EWCA Civ 1032 (01 August 2025)

Modernatx Inc v Pfizer Ltd & Ors [2025] EWCA Civ 1032 (01 August 2025)

Claim 3 of EP949 is novel over UPenn because UPenn does not provide an individualised disclosure or clear pointer to the combination of N1-methyl-pseudouridine and 100% replacement in mRNA. The selection from two lists without a pointer does not anticipate the claim. The invention is not obvious because the skilled person would not be motivated or directed by UPenn to make the claimed combination, and the prior art does not render the inventive step obvious without hindsight.

Citation
[2025] EWCA Civ 1032
Parties
Claimant/respondent: MODERNATX, INC.; Defendant/appellant: PFIZER LIMITED; Defendant/appellant: PFIZER MANUFACTURING BELGIUM NV; Defendant/appellant: PFIZER INC.; Defendant/appellant: BIONTECH MANUFACTURING GMBH; Defendant/appellant: BIONTECH SE
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
01 August 2025
Procedural Posture
Patent Appeal / Court of Appeal Judgment
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; claim 3 of EP949 upheld as valid.
Legal Topics
Patent Validity, Novelty, Obviousness, M RNA Technology, Pharmaceutical Patents
Intellectual Property Patent Law Patent Validity Novelty Obviousness M RNA Technology Pharmaceutical Patents

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 10 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

MODERNATX, INC.

Claimant/respondent

PFIZER LIMITED

Defendant/appellant

PFIZER MANUFACTURING BELGIUM NV

Defendant/appellant

PFIZER INC.

Defendant/appellant

BIONTECH MANUFACTURING GMBH

Defendant/appellant

BIONTECH SE

Defendant/appellant

Procedural Posture

Patent Appeal / Court of Appeal Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Is claim 3 of EP949 novel over UPenn?
  2. 2 Is claim 3 of EP949 obvious in light of UPenn?

Ratio Decidendi

Claim 3 of EP949 is novel over UPenn because UPenn does not provide an individualised disclosure or clear pointer to the combination of N1-methyl-pseudouridine and 100% replacement in mRNA. The selection from two lists without a pointer does not anticipate the claim. The invention is not obvious because the skilled person would not be motivated or directed by UPenn to make the claimed combination, and the prior art does not render the inventive step obvious without hindsight.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; claim 3 of EP949 upheld as valid.

Orders

  • EP949 claim 3 is valid and not anticipated or obvious over UPenn.
  • No relief granted to appellants; costs to be determined separately.