Moderna faces $5 billion mRNA patent lawsuit after ‘Star Trek’ ruling

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.

Related: Will Biotech and Life Sciences Investment Recover in 2026?

As a result, the judge ruled on “prosecution history estoppel,” meaning that Arbutus can’t use the argument that Moderna’s vaccine is “close enough,” and must prove that Moderna’s vaccine matches Arbutus’ exact molar ratios.

The upcoming trial will address several questions, including the actual scientific debate.

Scientific experts on both sides disagree on the methods of whether mRNA is “fully encapsulated” in the lipid vesicles. The jury will also decide if Moderna’s Spikevax used the exact molar ratios that Arbutus’s patents protected.

Within the biotech industry, companies suing each other over scientific findings and overlapping tech is extremely common.

But this trial is a precedent that could decide whether Arbutus is victorious and granted a “royalty tax” on future mRNA-based technologies and medicines, including cancer treatments and flu shots, and, if Moderna prevails, could cement its place as a vaccine tech giant.

Related: Clock ticks for $295 billion shadow bank as lawsuit deadline hits

This story was originally published by TheStreet on Feb 6, 2026, where it first appeared in the Investing section. Add TheStreet as a Preferred Source by clicking here.