Court Bars Moderna's Obviousness & Derivation Defenses in Patent Suit, Enablement to Trial

summarizeSummary

A U.S. District Court issued a detailed order in Arbutus's patent infringement lawsuit against Moderna, rejecting Moderna's key defenses of obviousness and derivation, while allowing the enablement defense to proceed to trial.

check_boxKey Events

• Obviousness Defenses Barred

  The court granted Arbutus's motion for summary judgment, preventing Moderna from asserting obviousness defenses for U.S. Patent Nos. 9,364,435; 8,492,359; and 11,141,378 due to IPR estoppel and issue preclusion. This follows the mixed ruling reported on 2026-02-06.

• Derivation Defense Rejected

  The court also granted summary judgment to Arbutus, ruling that U.S. Patent No. 9,504,651 was not derived from prior art, validating Arbutus's inventiveness.

• Enablement Defense to Trial

  Moderna's enablement defense was allowed to proceed to a jury trial, as the court found admissible expert opinions creating a genuine factual dispute.

• Expert Testimony Exclusions

  The court excluded Moderna's expert testimony on obviousness (Dr. Anderson) but allowed its expert testimony on enablement (Dr. Prud'homme).

auto_awesomeAnalysis

This filing provides the detailed judicial order from the ongoing patent infringement lawsuit against Moderna, which is critical for Arbutus's LNP technology. The court's decision to bar Moderna's obviousness and derivation defenses significantly strengthens Arbutus's position by narrowing Moderna's arguments for invalidating the patents. The exclusion of Moderna's expert testimony on obviousness further supports Arbutus's claims. However, the decision to allow Moderna's enablement defense to proceed to a jury trial introduces continued uncertainty and prolongs the litigation, meaning the ultimate outcome of the lawsuit remains pending. Investors should monitor the progress of the enablement trial.