In a long, but intricately reasoned first instance judgment, Australia’s Federal Court has ruled on the validity and infringement of patents relating to wireless detonators.
The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) recently decided that Moderna’s mRNA-based COVID-19 vaccine, SPIKEVAX®, did not infringe Alnylam’s patents because the cationic lipid used in the vaccine, SM-102, was not a cationic lipid with a ‘branched alkyl’ group.[1] The case turned on the proper construction of ‘branched alkyl’.
Imagine an organisation obtaining patent protection over a formulation derived from Kakadu plum, while the First Nations community whose Knowledge guided the discovery receives neither recognition nor benefit.
Interlocutory injunctions can be a critical tool to help protect intellectual property rights by restraining alleged infringement while a substantive infringement proceeding is run.
Two weeks ago, GlaxoSmithKline (GSK) filed proceedings against the makers of the COVID-19 SPIKEVAX® vaccine, Moderna, Inc in the US Federal District Court in Delaware alleging that Moderna has infringed its patents relating to messenger RNA (mRNA) technology.