Modernatx, Inc v Pfizer Limited & Ors

Modernatx, Inc v Pfizer Limited & Ors

Claim 3 of EP949 is novel over UPenn because UPenn does not provide a clear and unambiguous individualised disclosure of m1Ψ-mRNA with 100% uracil replacement; it is not obvious because the skilled person would lack motivation and concrete expectation of success to test m1Ψ, and the approach proposed by PBNT is hindsight-driven and not supported by the technical teaching of UPenn.

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
08 January 2025
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court Judgment
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Patent Validity, Novelty, Obviousness, Messenger RNA Technology, Pharmaceutical Patents
Intellectual Property Patent Law Patent Validity Novelty Obviousness Messenger 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

Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether claim 3 of European Patent (UK) No. 3 590 949 (EP949) is novel over International Patent Application No. WO 2007/024708 (UPenn)
  2. 2 Whether claim 3 of EP949 is obvious in light of UPenn

Ratio Decidendi

Claim 3 of EP949 is novel over UPenn because UPenn does not provide a clear and unambiguous individualised disclosure of m1Ψ-mRNA with 100% uracil replacement; it is not obvious because the skilled person would lack motivation and concrete expectation of success to test m1Ψ, and the approach proposed by PBNT is hindsight-driven and not supported by the technical teaching of UPenn.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Claim 3 of EP949 is valid and novel over UPenn
  • Claim 3 of EP949 is not obvious in light of UPenn