BioNTech and Pfizer v CureVac [2024] EWHC 2538 (Pat)
CureVac, a German developer of mRNA vaccines, asserted that BionTech/Pfizer’s Comirnaty COVID-19 vaccine infringed 2014 patents directed to a ‘split poly(A) tail’ i.e. a 3’ sequence of repeated adenosines split by a linker. CureVac argued that the patents plausibly disclosed improved protein expression resulting from the split poly(A) tail across the scope of the claims. BioNTech/Pfizer sought revocation of the patents on the grounds that they did not plausibly disclose this effect and it could not be obtained in fact, and on the further grounds that they lacked inventive step over an earlier CureVac patent (Thess) and added matter. Meade J heard the trial between 10 and 24 July 2024. He found that the patents did not plausibly disclose the claimed effect, this could not be obtained in fact and that the patents were also invalid for obviousness over Thess.
Piers Acland KC and Adam Gamsa appeared for CureVac, instructed by Bird & Bird LLP. Tom Alkin appeared for BioNTech, instructed by Powell Gilbert LLP.
[2024] EWHC 2538 (Pat)