the firm's post-grant practitioners are some of the most experienced in the country.

Nicholas  Rosa, Ph.D.
Colin B. Harris
Vincent K. Shier, Ph.D.
Kurt M. Berger, Ph.D.
Frank J. West
Steven B. Chang
David M. Longo, Ph.D.
Christopher I. Donahue
Kevin L. Hartman, Ph.D.
J. Derek  Mason, Ph.D., CLP
Norman F. Oblon
Christopher  Ricciuti
Jenchieh (Joseph) Yuan
Jay E. Rowe, Jr., Ph.D.
Nanlin  Wang, Ph.D.
John S. Kern
Akihiro  Yamazaki
Jianping (James)  Wu
Michael R. Casey, Ph.D.
John F. Presper
Peifang  Tian, Ph.D.
Teddy S. Gron
Chika (Teranishi) Iitoyo
Aristotelis M. Psitos
Kevin Ross  Davis
Tao  Feng, Ph.D.
Charles L. Gholz
Stefan Uwe  Koschmieder, Ph.D.
Yanwen  Fei
Tia D. Fenton
Edwin D. Garlepp
Philippe J.C. Signore, Ph.D.
Robert T. Pous
Richard D. Kelly
Thomas M. Cunningham, Ph.D.
Aldo  Martinez
Yuki  Onoe
Brian B. Darville
Craig R. Feinberg
Derek  Lightner, Ph.D.
Surinder  Sachar
John  Sipos
Diane  Jones
Alec M. Royka
Kevin M. McKinley
Carl E. Schlier
Grace E. Kim
Yorikatsu  Hohokabe, Ph.D.
James R. Love
Ryan W. Smith
Ching-Cheng (Tony)  Chang
Long  Phan, Ph.D.
Sameer  Gokhale
Robert W. Downs
Eric W. Schweibenz
Johnny  Ma
Dale M. Shaw
Kasumi  Kanetaka
Yuanyi (Alex) Zhang, Ph.D.
Eckhard H. Kuesters
Andrew M. Ollis
Arthur I. Neustadt
Bogdan A. Zinchenko
Elissa L. Sanford
Jeffrey B. McIntyre
Yin Y. Nelson, Ph.D.
Daniel J. Pereira, Ph.D.
Alexander B. Englehart
Marina I. Miller, Ph.D.
Erik M. Stang, Ph.D.
Stephen G. Baxter, Ph.D.
Robert  Tarcu
Anna Z. Lloyd

Technologies

Artificial Intelligence (AI)
Artificial Intelligence (AI)
Digital Health
Digital Health
Energy & Renewables
Energy & Renewables

Fast Facts

About Our

Law Firm

About Our Law Firm

Headquartered within steps of the USPTO with an affiliate office in Tokyo, Oblon is one of the largest law firms in the United States focused exclusively on intellectual property law.

Get to know our

History

Get to know our History

1968
Norman Oblon with Stanley Fisher and Marvin Spivak launched what was to become Oblon, McClelland, Maier & Neustadt, LLP, one of the nation's leading full-service intellectual property law firms.

Our Local and

Global Reach

Our Local and Global Reach

Outside the US, we service companies based in Japan, France, Germany, Italy, Saudi Arabia, and farther corners of the world. Our culturally aware attorneys speak many languages, including Japanese, French, German, Mandarin, Korean, Russian, Arabic, Farsi, Chinese.

A few of our

ACCOLADES

A few of our ACCOLADES

Oblon's professionals provide industry-leading IP legal services to many of the world's most admired innovators and brands.

OPPORTUNITIES FOR YOUR

Career

OPPORTUNITIES FOR YOUR Career

From the minute you walk through our doors, you'll become a valuable part of a team that fosters a culture of innovation, client service and collegiality.

A few ways to

GET In Touch

A few ways to GET In Touch
US Office

Telephone: 703-413-3000
Learn More +


Tokyo Office

Telephone: +81-3-6212-0550
Learn More +

Downloadable

Patent Forms

Downloadable Patent Forms

The United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) issued final rules implementing the inventor's oath or declaration provisions of the America Invents Act (AIA) on August 14, 2012.

ModernaTx, Inc. v. Arbutus Biopharma Corp.: Sublicense Not Enough to Show Standing

  • December 13, 2021
  • Article

Associated People

Associated Technologies


On Dec. 1, 2021, the Federal Circuit held that Moderna lacked standing in an appeal from a Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB”) decision against rival Arbutus where the PTAB determined U.S. Patent No. 9,364,435 (“the ’435 patent”) was not unpatentable as obvious.[1] The ’435 patent concerns vaccine delivery technology, particularly a lipid nanoparticle delivery system used to protect nucleic acids delivered to cells as utilized in vaccines including Moderna’s COVID-19 vaccine.

Arbutus challenged Moderna’s standing to sue, asserting that it had never initiated a patent infringement action against Moderna or otherwise accused Moderna of patent infringement, and therefore Moderna never established an injury in fact. Moderna argued that the risk of future infringement is not the only way an IPR petitioner can show an injury and instead relied on the argument that financial impacts based on licensing obligations can be another way to show injury for standing purposes. Moderna asserted that the rights granted to them through a sublicense to practice Arbutus’ patented technology in their development program created a sufficient injury. Specifically, Moderna asserted that the royalty and milestone obligations owed to the licensee, Acuitas Biotherapeutics (“Acuitas”), caused them harm by increasing their financial burden and further argued their financial obligations were impacted by the Board’s validity determinations concerning the ’435 patent.

Arbutus argued that the mere existence of a license is not sufficient to show standing as Moderna failed to identify any recent milestone payment or any other impending payment. Moderna supplemented the record with additional evidence, noting that the development program using the licensed patents had been terminated but argued that Moderna’s ongoing development of the COVID-19 vaccine created a significant risk of being sued for accused infringement based on the assertion that Arbutus made “aggressive public statements” and refused to grant Moderna a covenant not to sue.

At oral argument, Arbutus asserted that at the time of the filing of the appeal, Moderna’s basis for standing lacked immediacy and the licensing obligations Moderna relied upon to show standing were too speculative. Arbutus further argued that Moderna had not shown how its sublicense payment obligations would change if the '435 patent were to be invalidated. The Federal Circuit agreed with Arbutus that Moderna lacked standing at the time the appeal was filed, stating that the evidence of financial burdens from the validity of the patent was too speculative. The court noted that the last milestone payment made under the sublicense was five years earlier, and therefore Moderna failed to show a concrete injury. The court also pointed out that the ’435 patent was not the only patent licensed under the Acuitas sublicenses, and further, Moderna had not shown evidence as to how its obligations under the Acuitas sublicenses would change if it was successful in its attempts to have the '435 patent declared invalid while the remaining licensed patents continue to exist.

The court also highlighted Moderna’s failure to show continuity of jurisdiction. Their proffered basis for standing shifted during the pendency of the appeal, from first alleging financial burdens of the sublicenses to then arguing there was a risk of a potential infringement suit regarding the COVID-19 vaccine. The evidence presented failed to show an approximate date when the development program was terminated and therefore, whether Moderna was already sufficiently underway with its development of a COVID-19 vaccine to create a substantial risk of future infringement. Accordingly, the court dismissed Moderna’s appeal for lack of standing. This holding leaves Moderna’s COVID-19 vaccine vulnerable to potential patent infringement lawsuits going forward.



[1] ModernaTx, Inc. v. Arbutus Biopharma Corp., 2021 U.S. App. LEXIS 35471 (Fed. Cir. 2021).