A federal judge in Delaware has ruled that Moderna Inc. cannot assert an obviousness defense in a patent infringement lawsuit concerning its COVID-19 vaccine, Spikevax. The decision, issued on February 17, 2026, stems from Moderna’s prior use of the same defense in related proceedings before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB).
The lawsuit, initiated by Arbutus Biopharma Corp. and Genevant Sciences, alleges that Moderna’s vaccine infringes on patents related to lipid nanoparticle (LNP) technology essential for delivering messenger RNA (mRNA) into human cells. This technology is crucial for the efficacy of mRNA-based vaccines, as it protects the fragile mRNA molecules until they reach their target within the body.
In his ruling, Judge Joshua D. Wolson emphasized that Moderna had already presented the obviousness argument during PTAB proceedings, where the board found certain claims of Moderna’s patents unpatentable. Allowing the same defense in the current lawsuit would be redundant and inefficient. The judge stated, “Even at warp speed, the law still requires that we not copy other people’s inventions,” referencing the rapid development of COVID-19 vaccines.
This decision is part of a broader legal landscape where Moderna faces multiple patent infringement claims. In November 2025, Northwestern University filed a lawsuit alleging that Moderna’s vaccine infringed on patents covering vaccine-delivery technology. Additionally, in October 2024, GlaxoSmithKline (GSK) sued Moderna, claiming that Spikevax violated GSK’s patents related to mRNA technology.
These legal challenges underscore the complex patent environment surrounding mRNA vaccine technologies. As companies raced to develop and distribute COVID-19 vaccines, the rapid innovation has led to numerous disputes over intellectual property rights. The outcome of these cases could have significant implications for the biotechnology industry, particularly concerning the development and commercialization of mRNA-based therapies.
Moderna has indicated its intention to defend itself vigorously against these claims, asserting that its vaccine development was based on proprietary technology. However, the recent ruling limiting its defense strategies may pose additional challenges as the company navigates the ongoing litigation landscape.
As the legal proceedings continue, stakeholders in the pharmaceutical and biotechnology sectors will be closely monitoring the outcomes, which could influence future innovation and collaboration in the field of mRNA therapeutics.