Behind the household COVID-19 name, Moderna, is facing a $5 billion patent-infringement lawsuit over vaccine technology.
On February 2, 2026, U.S. District Judge Joshua D. Wolson denied Moderna’s request for summary judgment, saying the jury will have the choice whether Moderna’s COVID-19 vaccine, Spikevax, breached on ‘lipid nanoparticle (LNP) technology’ originally patented by Genevant Sciences and Arbutus Biopharma.
Judge Wolson used a “Star Trek” metaphor, saying that even with the US Government’s “warp speed” at which the vaccine was developed, the core of patent law is upheld: “don’t copy other people’s inventions.”
Related: Abbott Labs CEO makes $2M bet as stock sinks
The trial’s core argument centers on how the vaccine moves, via Messenger RNA (mRNA).
(mRNA) is fragile and would be destroyed in the body when entering by itself, unless the lipid (fat) nanoparticles, the tech that the plaintiffs claim Intellectual property over, work as protection.
Arbutus Biopharma claims its scientists spent a long time identifying the specific “molar ratios” of the lipids that would make the vaccine safe and effective for public use.
Under section 1498, Moderna’s defense claimed the law that protects government contractors from being sued in private courts for patent infringement.
Moderna argues that the vaccine was developed under “Operation Warp Speed,” a federal program, and that legal disputes would be handled by the U.S. Court of Federal Claims, where the government would basically take the fall for damages instead of the company.
More Health Care:
But, the judge ruled that section 1498 applies if the product was for the government itself, the “intended recipient.”
With Moderna’s vaccines, the general public received millions of doses, and U.S. residents were the beneficiaries, not the U.S. government.
The guise of section 1498 could be applied to the fraction of doses directly given to government employees, but most doses were for public use, making them liable for $5 billion in possible damages.
Moderna failed in its bid to have the case dismissed, but the judge granted one of the technical requests regarding how patent infringement could be proven.
In patent descriptions for ranges of lipids, Arbutus used the word “about,” but those ranges are narrowed into hard numbers (i.e., “about 50%) in order for the Patent Office to approve.
