Context: CureVac and BioNTech/Pfizer recently settled a separate U.S. patent dispute during BioNTech’s acquisition of CureVac, with GSK also monetizing a related license arrangement as ip fray reported (August 8, 2025 ip fray article). CureVac’s sale to BioNTech had already prompted industry concerns that key messenger ribonucleic acid (mRNA) intellectual property could become concentrated in one combined entity. In addition, Moderna has previously sued other businesses to assert COVID-vaccine patents. Due to the fact that many life sciences companies are incorporated in Delaware, the United States District Court for the District of Delaware is frequently the site for significant patent disputes. This is where the new case was brought.
What’s new: CureVac SE and CureVac Manufacturing GmbH have now sued Moderna, Inc., ModernaTX, Inc., and Moderna US, Inc., claiming that by producing and marketing Spikevax, they violated ten U.S. patents. The lawsuit alleges direct, induced, and contributory infringement against different vaccination versions. CureVac demands a jury trial, enhanced damages (preferably three times the compensatory damages), and reasonable royalties as compensation for Moderna’s alleged willful infringement. A request for an injunction is expressly disclaimed by CureVac.
Direct impact: Moderna now faces another substantial U.S. patent case tied to its COVID-vaccine business. Because U.S. patent damages can generally reach back six years from the filing of a complaint, a 2026 filing may still capture essentially the full commercial COVID-vaccination period beginning in late 2020. That increases the financial significance of the case, especially given Moderna’s past Spikevax revenues alleged in the complaint. No judge appears to have been assigned yet.
Wider ramifications: It’s not just about COVID. Some of the infringed patents cover general technology for mRNA production, purification and vaccines. These will likely be useful for new vaccines for respiratory diseases as well as cancer and other novel drugs. The case also reveals how the mRNA patent battles continue after the pandemic: businesses are battling over platform patents that may be crucial for the next ten years of biotech development, even as the COVID market declines.
The complaint alleges that Moderna’s Spikevax business infringes CureVac patents covering RNA manufacturing, stabilized mRNA formulations, and coronavirus vaccine technology. CureVac seeks monetary relief, including enhanced damages, but no injunction.
CureVac patents asserted against Moderna:
- U.S. Patent No. 10,760,070 (“Method for producing and purifying RNA, comprising at least one step of tangential flow filtration”)
- U.S. Patent No. 11,667,910 (“Method for producing and purifying RNA, comprising at least one step of tangential flow filtration”)
- U.S. Patent No. 11,760,992 (“Method for producing and purifying RNA, comprising at least one step of tangential flow filtration”)
- U.S. Patent No. 11,834,651 (“Method for producing and purifying RNA, comprising at least one step of tangential flow filtration”)
- U.S. Patent No. 12,221,605 (“Method for producing and purifying RNA, comprising at least one step of tangential flow filtration”)
- U.S. Patent No. 11,135,312 (“Pharmaceutical composition containing a stabilised mRNA optimised for translation in its coding regions”)
- U.S. Patent No. 11,576,966 (“Coronavirus vaccine”)
- U.S. Patent No. 11,596,686 (“Coronavirus vaccine”)
- U.S. Patent No. 12,194,089 (“Coronavirus vaccine”)
- U.S. Patent No. 12,390,523 (“Coronavirus vaccine”)
The asserted patents fall into two broad groups. One set concerns tangential flow filtration and other manufacturing methods used to produce and purify RNA at commercial scale. Another set relates to coronavirus vaccine designs and mRNA stabilization technologies. CureVac claims those technologies were important to making large-scale mRNA vaccines viable.
Notably, CureVac is requesting damages rather than an injunction. This is consistent with the overall pattern of COVID-vaccine litigation, wherein injunctions have been less common than requests for retroactive compensation.
The filing may not be the last such lawsuit in the U.S. this year. As the sixth anniversary of the first U.S. vaccinations outside clinical trials in mid-December 2020 approaches, some potential historical damages claims may begin to erode day by day. That timing pressure could influence strategic decisions by other patentees.
Court and counsel
Court: United States District Court for the District of Delaware.
CureVac is being represented by Ashby & Geddes’s Andrew C. Mayo and John G. Day; Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld’s Steven D. Maslowski, Matthew A. Pearson, Jason Weil, Anthony David Sierra, Vincent P. Jones, Rachel J. Elsby, and Svetlana Pavlovic; and Marshall Gerstein & Borun’s Mark H. Izraelewicz, Kevin M. Flowers, Sandip H. Patel, and Izabella N. C. Higson.