Litigation Details for Plaintiff(s) v. Defendant(s) (D. Del. 2020)

Plaintiff(s) v. Defendant(s) (D. Del. 2020)

Docket		Date Filed	2017-01-01
Court	District Court, D. Delaware	Date Terminated
Cause	no cause specified	Assigned To
Jury Demand		Referred To
Parties	DEFENDANT(S); PLAINTIFF(S)
Patents	10,004,717; 10,010,507; 10,039,745; 10,052,267; 10,058,564; 10,106,548; 10,124,000; 10,125,140; 10,143,723; 10,143,792; 10,154,987; 10,172,808; 10,188,632; 10,206,939; 10,258,637; 10,307,419; 10,376,487; 10,407,434; 10,426,780; 10,478,453; 10,543,192; 10,548,875; 10,583,155; 10,610,510; 10,610,511; 10,617,698; 10,660,908; 10,682,364; 10,688,108; 10,716,799; 10,772,868; 11,040,006; 11,083,724; 12,138,248; 6,024,981; 6,126,971; 6,200,604; 6,328,994; 6,403,120; 6,419,958; 6,500,814; 6,696,481; 6,794,410; 6,956,041; 6,965,027; 7,091,208; 7,105,486; 7,223,735; 7,229,636; 7,265,221; 7,301,023; 7,314,938; 7,404,489; 7,442,830; 7,514,444; 7,638,552; 7,655,630; 7,659,253; 7,659,254; 7,662,787; 7,662,788; 7,671,030; 7,671,031; 7,674,774; 7,678,770; 7,678,771; 7,687,466; 7,687,467; 7,691,411; 7,700,561; 7,713,936; 7,713,938; 7,718,619; 7,723,305; 7,723,390; 7,741,356; 7,745,460; 7,790,743; 7,816,396; 7,842,699; 7,846,961; 7,879,349; 7,888,362; 7,928,122; 8,003,111; 8,003,353; 8,008,309; 8,039,009; 8,084,047; 8,084,475; 8,101,659; 8,133,893; 8,147,866; 8,158,616; 8,168,655; 8,314,117; 8,338,489; 8,349,840; 8,367,701; 8,399,514; 8,420,629; 8,476,284; 8,497,277; 8,551,957; 8,592,450; 8,603,506; 8,618,109; 8,618,160; 8,697,711; 8,735,403; 8,754,090; 8,754,091; 8,759,372; 8,796,331; 8,859,504; 8,859,610; 8,877,938; 8,927,574; 8,940,714; 8,952,015; 8,957,079; 8,987,262; 9,073,933; 9,079,949; 9,085,553; 9,089,587; 9,161,926; 9,175,017; 9,181,257; 9,186,346; 9,216,174; 9,233,117; 9,233,118; 9,241,946; 9,242,986; 9,259,414; 9,296,753; 9,353,088; 9,388,134; 9,415,007; 9,447,077; 9,517,219; 9,522,919; 9,527,833; 9,572,796; 9,655,843; 9,655,857; 9,669,008; 9,675,587; 9,725,455; 9,744,105; 9,763,933; 9,775,808; 9,808,442; 9,839,637; 9,889,144; 9,890,141; 9,901,539; 9,937,181; 9,957,232; RE36,247; RE41,783; RE46,284; RE48,059
Attorneys	Plaintiff(s)
Firms	Klehr Harrison Harvey Branzburg & Ellers
Link to Docket	External link to docket

Biologic Drugs cited in Plaintiff(s) v. Defendant(s)

Details for Plaintiff(s) v. Defendant(s) (D. Del. 2020)

Date Filed	Document No.	Description	Snippet	Link To Document
2020-01-01				External link to document
2019-12-31	1071	Complaint	,839,637 (“the ’637 patent”) and 10,307,419 (“the ’419 patent”). {01611126;v1 } …the ’362 patent and U.S. Patent Nos. 8,349,840 (“the ’840 patent”), 8,618,109 (“the ’109 patent”), 9,839,637…civil action for patent infringement of U.S. Reissue Patent No. RE48,059 (“the RE’059 patent”), arising under…’362 patent as the RE’059 patent on June 23, 2020. A true and correct copy of the RE’059 patent is attached… The Patent In Suit 18. The United States Patent and Trademark Office (	External link to document
2019-12-31	1072	Complaint	9,839,637 (“the ’637 patent”) and 10,307,419 (“the ’419 patent”). 33. In response to Lupin…the ’362 patent and U.S. Patent Nos. 8,349,840 (“the ’840 patent”), 8,618,109 (“the ’109 patent”), 9,839,637…civil action for patent infringement of U.S. Reissue Patent No. RE48,059 (“the RE’059 patent”), arising under…’362 patent as the RE’059 patent on June 23, 2020. A true and correct copy of the RE’059 patent is attached… The Patent In Suit 25. The United States Patent and Trademark Office (	External link to document
2019-12-31	1073	Complaint	9,839,637 (“the ’637 patent”) and 10,307,419 (“the ’419 patent”). {01611225;v1 } …the ’362 patent and U.S. Patent Nos. 8,349,840 (“the ’840 patent”), 8,618,109 (“the ’109 patent”), 9,839,637…civil action for patent infringement of Reissue Patent No. RE48,059 (“the RE’059 patent”), arising under…’362 patent as the RE’059 patent on June 23, 2020. A true and correct copy of the RE’059 patent is attached… The Patent In Suit 36. The United States Patent and Trademark Office (	External link to document

Litigation Summary and Analysis for Plaintiff(s) v. Defendant(s) - Case 1:99-mc-09999

Case Overview

The litigation in question, Case 1:99-mc-09999, involves a patent infringement dispute between Alnylam Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (the plaintiff) and Moderna Therapeutics, Inc. (the defendant). Here is a detailed summary and analysis of the key points in this case.

Parties Involved

• Plaintiff: Alnylam Pharmaceuticals, Inc., a life science company based in Cambridge, Massachusetts, known for its work in RNA interference (RNAi) therapeutics.
• Defendant: Moderna Therapeutics, Inc., a biotechnology company also based in Massachusetts, known for its mRNA-based therapies, including the COVID-19 vaccine.

Nature of the Dispute

The dispute centers around the alleged infringement of Alnylam's '933 Patent by Moderna. The '933 Patent pertains to lipid nanoparticle (LNP) technology, which is crucial for delivering RNAi therapeutics and other nucleic acid-based treatments.

Alnylam's Claims

Alnylam alleges that Moderna has infringed on its '933 Patent by using a cationic lipid with biodegradable groups, known as SM-102, in its COVID-19 vaccine and other products. Alnylam claims that Moderna's use of this technology constitutes direct infringement under 35 U.S.C. § 271(a) and also induces infringement by its end users, distributors, and other parties involved in the sale and distribution of Moderna's products[1].

Patent Details

The '933 Patent includes claims related to specific compositions and methods involving LNP technology. Alnylam has provided a preliminary claim chart detailing how Moderna's activities infringe on claims 18, 20-22, and 24-27 of the '933 Patent. This chart is subject to modification as the case proceeds[1].

Jurisdiction and Venue

The case is filed in the United States District Court, with jurisdiction and venue established under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1338(a). The court has personal jurisdiction over Moderna, which conducts significant business in the judicial district[2].

Relief Sought

Alnylam seeks several forms of relief, including:

• A judgment that Moderna directly infringes the '933 Patent.
• A judgment that Moderna induces infringement of the '933 Patent.
• Damages or other monetary relief, including a reasonable royalty.
• Costs and expenses associated with the litigation.
• Any other relief deemed just and proper by the court. Notably, Alnylam does not seek injunctive relief[1].

Significance of the Case

This case highlights the critical importance of intellectual property protection in the biotechnology and pharmaceutical industries. The dispute underscores the competitive and innovative landscape where companies like Alnylam and Moderna are pushing the boundaries of medical science.

Industry Impact

The outcome of this case could have significant implications for the development and commercialization of RNAi and mRNA therapies. It may set precedents for how patent infringement is handled in the biotech sector, particularly regarding the use of LNP technology.

Legal Considerations

The case involves complex legal issues related to patent law, including the doctrine of equivalents and the concept of induced infringement. The court's decision will depend on a detailed analysis of the patent claims, the technology used by Moderna, and the evidence presented by both parties.

Conclusion

The litigation between Alnylam and Moderna is a high-stakes battle over intellectual property rights in the biotechnology sector. The case emphasizes the importance of protecting innovative technologies and the potential consequences of patent infringement.

Key Takeaways

• Patent Infringement: Alnylam alleges that Moderna infringed on its '933 Patent related to LNP technology.
• Relief Sought: Alnylam seeks monetary damages, costs, and other relief but not injunctive relief.
• Jurisdiction and Venue: The case is filed in the U.S. District Court with established jurisdiction and venue.
• Industry Impact: The outcome could set precedents for patent infringement in biotech and affect the development of RNAi and mRNA therapies.
• Legal Considerations: The case involves complex patent law issues, including direct and induced infringement.

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)

1. What is the main issue in the litigation between Alnylam and Moderna?

The main issue is Alnylam's allegation that Moderna has infringed on its '933 Patent related to lipid nanoparticle (LNP) technology.

2. What is LNP technology, and why is it important?

LNP technology is crucial for delivering RNAi and mRNA therapeutics. It involves using lipid nanoparticles to encapsulate and deliver nucleic acids into cells, which is a key component in many modern biotech treatments.

3. What relief is Alnylam seeking in this case?

Alnylam is seeking a judgment of infringement, damages or a reasonable royalty, costs and expenses, and other monetary relief but not injunctive relief.

4. Why is this case significant for the biotechnology industry?

The case is significant because it involves the protection of innovative technologies that are critical for the development of new medical treatments. The outcome could set important precedents for patent infringement in the biotech sector.

5. What are the potential implications of this case for Moderna and other biotech companies?

The potential implications include financial penalties for Moderna if found guilty of infringement, and broader implications for how biotech companies protect and use patented technologies in their products.