In a pivotal ruling, the High Court in London has sided with Moderna in a patent dispute against Pfizer and BioNTech over their COVID-19 vaccines. The court found that Pfizer-BioNTech’s use of mRNA technology infringed on Moderna’s patented process involving modified RNA. Despite Pfizer and BioNTech’s arguments, the court upheld Moderna’s patent validity, highlighting the innovative nature of its methods. This decision, which also addressed a second Moderna patent, could have significant implications as all parties prepare to appeal. The outcome doesn’t affect vaccine safety or efficacy but underscores the fierce competition and legal complexities in the pharmaceutical industry amid the plandemic’s aftermath.

Zachary Stieber from The Epoch Times reported that Pfizer and BioNTech’s COVID-19 vaccine infringed on a competitor Moderna’s patent, according to a verdict issued on July 2 by the High Court in London, England.

The Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna COVID-19 vaccines use messenger ribonucleic acid (mRNA) technology.

Moderna has patented mRNA techniques that replace the nucleoside uridine with N1-methylpseudouridine, a modified RNA. The patent is for “ribonucleic acids containing n1-methyl-pseudouracils and uses thereof.”

The patent “is valid,” the court said, and it was violated “given that Pfizer/BioNTech conceded that it would be infringed if valid.”

The court rejected Pfizer and BioNTech’s claims, including their claim that Moderna’s patent was not new. It stated that sections of the patent were innovative and derived from a process developed at the University of Pennsylvania.

In 2023, the District Court of the Hague declared the patent invalid due to a lack of originality versus the method, but the London court stated that it evaluated further material and found some aspects persuasive that the Hague did not.

In 2020, Moderna announced that it will not enforce COVID-19 patents against other producers. However, it reversed the declaration in 2022, implying that Pfizer and BioNTech violated the patent, according to a similar decision by the top court.

The decision was written by Justice Jonathan Richards: “Even if the pledge was an express waiver of rights, it was validly retracted by the March 2022 statement since Pfizer/BioNTech had not by that date materially changed its position in reliance on the pledge.”

The court also determined that Moderna’s second patent was invalid.

Possible Appeals

All three corporations stated that they disagreed with the aspects of the court’s decision on which they lost, and all parties are anticipated to seek leave to appeal.

Pfizer and BioNTech issued a statement:

“These proceedings have no bearing on the safety and efficacy profile of our vaccine, as established by regulators worldwide.

“Irrespective of the outcome of this legal matter, we will continue to manufacture and supply the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine in line with our agreements and established supply schedules.”

A Moderna representative expressed satisfaction that the court had “recognized the innovation of Moderna scientists by confirming the validity and infringement” of one of its patents.

Pfizer, BioNTech, and Moderna are also involved in parallel processes in Germany, the Netherlands, Belgium, and the United States, with much of it placed on hold, as well as at the European Patent Office.

The London verdict comes at a difficult moment for Moderna, whose shares have declined by more than 70% since the plandemic’s peak due to decreased demand and sales of Spikevax. Pfizer shares, meanwhile, have fallen by nearly 29 percent since mid-2021.

Recently, GreatGameIndia reported that, despite ongoing questions about its mRNA technology, Moderna has secured a $176 million U.S. government contract to develop a bird flu vaccine as concerns grow over the H5N1 virus spreading among dairy cows and workers.