Manufacturer of the COVID-19 vaccine BioNTech (NASDAQ: BNTX) and partner Pfizer (NYSE: PFE) announced on Tuesday that they had lodged a petition with the US District Court in Massachusetts, requesting for a ruling that their actions did not violate US patents claimed by rival CureVac BV (NASDAQ: CVAC).
CureVac accused of trying to take advantage of BioNTech’s COVID-19 vaccines
Following the failure of CureVac’s efforts to develop its own vaccine, the complaint, submitted on Monday, claimed that CureVac is attempting to capitalize on the popularity of BioNTech and Pfizer’s COVID-19 vaccinations.
As a result of BioNTech’s utilization of mRNA tech, CureVac, at the start of this month, launched a patent case in Germany versus the company. In addition, CureVac did not exclude taking additional legal proceedings versus BioNTech’s collaborator Pfizer or competing for mRNA vaccine manufacturer Moderna Inc. (NASDAQ: MRNA).
According to BioNTech, CureVac’s US patents are identical to the German patent rights that CureVac used in the German legal proceeding. Curevac had also filed a complaint against BioNTech for intellectual property rights infringement.
BioNTech and Pfizer urged the Boston court to rule that its Comirnaty vaccine doesn’t infringe upon three RNA-based vaccine-related CureVac patent rights. The businesses testified before the court that Comirnaty doesn’t operate similarly to the patented technology used by CureVac.
Several firms have filed suits against BioNTech, Pfizer, and Moderna
The vaccines use lipid nanoparticles (LNPs) to carry the molecules effectively into the body, and one of the patents relates to messenger RNA (mRNA) coupled to LNPs. This year, several biotech firms have filed US patent cases against Pfizer, BioNTech, and Moderna regarding the LNP technology utilized in their COVID-19 vaccines.
According to Pfizer, $32B in sales from Comirnaty are anticipated this year.
Although it hadn’t yet received official service, CureVac said in a release that it was informed of BioNTech’s legal action but is yet to be served formally. However, the company added that it would review the matter in detail and then represent its position accordingly.
