Context: In July 2022, BioNTech and Pfizer launched a pre-emptive strike against CureVac, filing a declaratory judgment complaint in the District of Massachusetts involving three of the defendant’s COVID vaccine-related patents (July 25, 2022 complaint). CureVac attempted to get the U.S. case dismissed for lack of jurisdiction three months later (October 27, 2022 motion to dismiss), and filed its own counterclaim in the Eastern District of Virginia in May 2023, alleging that BioNTech and Pfizer infringed 10 of its COVID vaccine-related patents. GSK, another major rival of Pfizer’s, also filed a patent infringement suit involving COVID vaccines in the District of Delaware (April 26, 2024 ip fray article). In July last year, GSK and CureVac restructured a pre-existing collaboration into a new licensing agreement, under which GSK acquired full rights to develop, manufacture and commercialize CureVac’s mRNA vaccine candidates for influenza and COVID-19 across the world (July 3, 2024 CureVac press release). GSK also intervened in CureVac’s counterclaim, requesting an expedited hearing on that motion that was scheduled for August 7, 2025. In June, BioNTech announced it would be acquiring CureVac (June 12, 2025 BioNTech press release).
What’s new: CureVac has settled its dispute with Pfizer and BioNTech in the U.S. In return for a non-exclusive license to manufacture, use, import into the U.S. and sell mRNA-based COVID-19 and/or influenza products, both CureVac and GSK will receive a payment of $740 million (August 8, 2025 CureVac press release). CureVac will also receive $50 million from GSK for monetizing a portion of U.S. product royalties due under their existing license agreement. GSK’s share is equal to $370 million, and it will also receive a 1% royalty in respect of US sales of influenza, COVID-19 and related combination mRNA vaccine products by BioNTech and Pfizer from the beginning of 2025.
Direct impact: More than anything, this settlement resolves a potential contract dispute between CureVac and GSK post-acquisition. The announcement was made the same day the court was due to hear GSK’s motion and potentially enjoin CureVac and BioNTech from settling without GSK’s consent. If BioNTech’s acquisition of CureVac goes through, their litigation outside the U.S. will also be settled, and the license will be expanded into a worldwide license. GSK would then be entitled to an additional $130 million in cash and 1% royalty payments in respect of future sales outside of the U.S. by BioNTech and Pfizer.
Wider ramifications: In a statement today, GSK emphasized that this settlement does not impact its enforcement of its own COVID-related patents against Pfizer and BioNTech in the U.S. and in Europe. “GSK will continue with its litigation against BioNTech and Pfizer for infringement of GSK’s patents,” it stated (August 8, 2025 GSK press release). The company has also entered into a customary tender and support agreement under which it has agreed to tender its approximately 16.6 million CureVac shares in the upcoming offer.
This is the stipulation of dismissal:
The patents-in-suit included:
- U.S. Patent No. 11,135,312 (“Pharmaceutical composition containing a stabilised mRNA optimised for translation in its coding regions”)
- U.S. Patent No. 11,149,278 (“Artificial nucleic acid molecules for improved protein expression”)
- U.S. Patent No. 11,241,493 (“Coronavirus vaccine”)
- U.S. Patent No. 11,286,492 (“Artificial nucleic acid molecules for improved protein expression”)
- U.S. Patent No. 11,345,920 (“Artificial nucleic acid molecules for improved protein expression”)
- 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. 11,471,525 (“Coronavirus vaccine”)
- U.S. Patent No. 11,576,966 (“Coronavirus vaccine”)
- U.S. Patent No. 11,596,686 (“Coronavirus vaccine”)
In its motion to intervene, GSK argued that, given its new merger agreement with BioNTech, its interests were no longer adequately represented by CureVac. The company feared that the settlement terms would be optimized only for BioNTech’s purposes and put GSK at a disadvantage.
This is the motion to intervene:
This is GSK’s reply brief:
Counsel
BioNTech and Pfizer were represented by Stephen E. Noona and Clark J. Belote at KAUFMAN & CANOLES, as well as Bruce M. Wexler, Eric W. Dittmann, Young J. Park, and Max H. Yusem at Paul Hastings, and a team at White & Case: Dimitrios T. Drivas, John P. Scheibeler, Kevin J. Georgek, and Samantha J. Kokonis.
CureVac was represented by Dana D. McDaniel, John M. Erbach, M. F. Connell Mullins, Jr., Chris Bascom, and Clay S. Hester at Spotts Fain, as well as Mark H. Izraelewicz, Kevin M. Flowers, John R. Labbe, Michael R. Weiner, Sandip H. Patel, Michael J. Allikian, Thomas R. Burns, Chelsea M. Murray, Izabella N. C. Higson, and Daniel Gonzalez at Marshall, Gerstein & Borun.