Your support helps us tell the story
Click here for detailsClose
As a White House correspondent, I ask hard questions and want important answers.
Your support allows me to stand in the chamber and speak for transparency and accountability. Without your support, I would not have the resources to take on those in power.
Your donation allows us to continue our important work of keeping you informed every step of the way leading up to the November election.
Andrew Feinberg
White House Correspondent
A multi-million pound legal battle between rival developers over a technology patent for a Covid-19 vaccine is set to continue in the Court of Appeal.
In July, a high court judge handed down a complex ruling in a long-running battle between pharmaceutical giant Pfizer and drug maker BioNTech and vaccine maker Moderna.
The two companies faced off earlier this year in two trials in London over the use of messenger RNA (mRNA) technology in a life-saving coronavirus vaccine.
At a hearing in London on Wednesday, Pfizer and BioNTech were given permission to appeal against parts of Judge Mead’s ruling.
US company Moderna has sued US rival Pfizer and its German partner BioNTech for alleged patent infringement over its Comirnaty vaccine, claiming that damages should be paid for products manufactured after March 7, 2022.
Pfizer and BioNTech deny any patent infringement and have sought to have two of Moderna’s patents “cancelled,” claiming they are “invalid.”
Judge Meade concluded that one of Moderna’s European patents, named EP565, was “invalid.”
But the judge said another patent, called EP949, was “valid” and had been infringed by Pfizer and BioNTech.
At a hearing on Wednesday, the same judge allowed Pfizer and BioNTech to appeal the EP949 ruling but did not allow Moderna to appeal the ruling on the EP565 patent.
Judge Mead said Moderna could still seek permission to challenge EP565’s decision directly from the Court of Appeal.
The judge, who also ruled on the calculation and payment of legal costs, said “something was wrong” in the case, in which the companies have spent an estimated £19 million together.
Moderna’s filings show its estimated total legal costs are around £9,439,864, while Pfizer and BioNTech’s are around £9,880,851.
This is a very important case because it concerns the patentability of the first corona vaccine that saved us from the pandemic.
Attorney Andrew Waugh KC, Moderna Inc.
Andrew Waugh, the lawyer leading Moderna’s legal team, said in written argument there were “compelling” reasons why a higher court should hear the EP565 case.
Wharf said the “sums at issue” in the case, in terms of potential financial compensation and costs, “are extremely high for a patent dispute.”
He said the Court of Appeal’s decision in the case would be of “even greater significance” as other legal proceedings are ongoing in Ireland, the Netherlands, Germany and Belgium.
During the argument over the payment of legal costs, Mr Waugh told the hearing: “We are talking about millions of pounds, an amount greater than the value of most High Court cases.”
Commenting on the value of the case, he said: “This is a very important case because it concerns the patentability of the first corona vaccine that actually worked and saved us from the pandemic.”
Warf argued that Moderna has been the “overall winner” in the litigation so far.
In written arguments, Tom Mitcheson, a lawyer for Pfizer and BioNTech, said the judge took the “wrong approach” in his July ruling and that the companies had a “real prospect of succeeding” in their appeal against the EP949 ruling.
He said the companies were the “overall successful parties” with respect to the EP565 patent.
Mitcheson has resisted Moderna being granted permission to appeal over EP565, arguing at the hearing that “this is a classic case where all Moderna is trying to do is restart the case.”
Moderna’s Spikevax vaccine became the third vaccine approved for use in the UK in January 2021, following the Pfizer/BioNTech and Oxford/AstraZeneca vaccines.
