Il prof. Chiris Seaman mette a disposizione il link all’atto di citazione di Moderna contro Pzifer Biontech. (poi: PB) (caso Case 1:22-cv-11378 presso la corte del Distretto del Massachusetts, depositatato il 26 agosto).
<21. Pfizer and BioNTech copied two critical features of Moderna’s patented mRNA technology platform. First, out of numerous possible choices, they decided to make the exact same chemical modification to their mRNA that Moderna scientists first developed years earlier, and which the Company patented and uses in Spikevax®. Second, and again despite having many different options, the Pfizer and BioNTech vaccine encoded for the exact same type of coronavirus protein (i.e., the full-length spike protein), which is the coronavirus vaccine design that Moderna had pioneered based off its earlier work on coronaviruses and which the company patented and uses in Spikevax®. The Moderna inventions that Pfizer and BioNTech chose to copy were foun-dational for the success of their vaccine>
La domanda giudiziale è basata <<on three patents that claim priority to applications filed be-tween 2011 and 2016 covering Moderna’s foundational intellectual property, and the Company is seeking damages for revenue Pfizer and BioNTech derived from sales in the United States that are not subject to 28 U.S.C. § 1498 and from its domestic manufacture for supply to non-AMC 92 countries outside the United States>>. Il che è poi dettagliato nei §§ 54 ss.
I vaccini PB son descritti ai § 72 ss
Le allegazioni sulle tre violazioni sono ai §§ 83 ss, 104 ss e 122 ss.
Curiosamente (ma comprensibilmente) Moderna chiede non misure ripristinatorie (inibitoria e ritiro dal commercio; misure “correttive” secondo il ns. art. 124 cpi), ma solo il risarcimento del danno (oltre all’accertamento della violazione).
L’azione in corte pare contrastare con l’impegno, assuntosi da Moderna nel 2020 (vedilo ad es. qui), di non far valere i suoi brevetti contro alcuno che li usasse per contrastare il vodic 19, finechè durasse la pandemia.
Moderna affronta l’obiezione e tenta gi giustificare la propria scelta: <<22. Given the unprecedented challenges of the COVID-19 pandemic, Moderna volun-tarily pledged on October 8, 2020 that, “while the pandemic continues, Moderna will not enforce our COVID-19 related patents against those making vaccines intended to combat the pandemic.” Moderna refrained from asserting its patents earlier so as not to distract from efforts to bring the pandemic to an end as quickly as possible.
23. By early 2022, however, the collective fight against COVID-19 had entered a new endemic phase and vaccine supply was no longer a barrier to access in many parts of the world, including the United States. In view of these developments, Moderna announced on March 7, 2022, that it expected companies such as Pfizer and BioNTech to respect Moderna’s intellectual property and would consider a commercially-reasonable license should they request one. This announcement was widely publicized, including through coverage in TheWall Street Journal.5Critically, however, and to further its belief that intellectual property should never be a barrier to access, as part of this announcement, Moderna committed to never enforce its patents for any COVID-19 vaccine used in the 92 low- and middle-income countries in the Gavi COVAX Ad-vance Market Commitment (“AMC”). This includes any product manufactured outside the AMC-92 countries, such as the World Health Organization’s project in South Africa, with respect to COVID-19 vaccines destined for and used in the AMC-92 countries. Although they have contin-ued to use Moderna’s intellectual property, Pfizer and BioNTech have not reached out to Moderna to discuss a license>>
V. però la dettagliata critica di Jorge L. Contreras per cui la dichiarzione 2020 di Moderna è giuridcamente vincolante e ora non può revocarla