This final installment examines where the mRNA landscape may be headed as legal and scientific forces continue to collide. Foundational claims are facing increasing scrutiny, particularly in proceedings before the PTAB, raising questions about the long-term strength of early filings. At the same time, companies such as Alnylam, CureVac, and GSK are asserting their positions through ongoing litigation and strategic licensing efforts. This section explores how these dynamics may shape the future direction of mRNA technology and associated intellectual property rights.
Looking ahead, companies and investors should anticipate a continued rise in legal challenges seeking to invalidate patents through inter partes review (IPR), a process that allows parties to ask the U.S. Patent Office to reconsider whether a patent should have been granted. But while litigation remains a dominant force, many companies are now exploring parallel strategies that de-escalate conflict and expand access to key technologies. Cross-licensing agreements—where companies agree to share access to each other's patents—are likely to become more common. These deals reduce the risk of costly litigation while enabling broader technology access.This trend toward increased cross-licensing may create win-win opportunities by aligning commercial goals with shared innovation. Building on this momentum, parties are increasingly viewing collaboration—not confrontation—as a way to navigate overlapping patents, thereby accelerating product development, market entry, and innovation.
That being said, international litigation strategies are becoming increasingly important. With major patent disputes now playing out in both the U.S. and Europe, the European Patent Office (EPO) and regional courts are gaining traction as critical venues for cross-border enforcement. CureVac's success in upholding its EP patent shows that the EPO is emerging as a powerful venue for mRNA-related enforcement. [1] While injunctions granted in Europe do not apply extraterritorially, they can impose significant commercial constraints on companies with global operations and may restrict supply chains that serve both European and U.S. markets. Moreover, European courts typically apply a different evidentiary standard and are more willing to grant injunctive relief than U.S. courts, making them an attractive forum for patentees. [2] Favorable European decisions—particularly those involving claim construction or validity—may also influence U.S. proceedings, especially where the same patent families or technical disclosures are at issue.
The potential to enforce European patent rights against non-EU companies is reinforced by the CJEU's decision in Hausgeräte v. Electrolux, which clarifies that European courts may assert long-arm jurisdiction over defendants in non-Unified Patent Court (UPC) states when cross-border infringement is alleged. [3] This means that even companies operating primarily in the U.S.—such as those marketing mRNA-based therapeutics globally—may face legal exposure under European patent claims. In that ruling, the CJEU held that a national court could hear an infringement action involving patents granted in other EU member states, so long as certain conditions of commercial targeting are met. [4][5] This expanded jurisdictional reach may enable patentees like CureVac or Arbutus to enforce European rights more broadly—even against companies headquartered or operating primarily outside the UPC system—thereby increasing the strategic leverage of successful EPO litigation.
As litigation intensifies and enforcement strategies expand across jurisdictions, companies are not only defending their own portfolios but also evaluating how to strategically reinforce them. For many, this means looking beyond litigation toward acquisition. Smaller companies holding critical lipid or formulation patents—especially those repeatedly implicated in infringement suits—are becoming increasingly attractive acquisition targets as larger firms seek to insulate their commercial pipelines from litigation risk. Many of the most contested patents, especially in LNP delivery, are held by smaller companies like Arbutus and Alnylam—firms that have become central players in ongoing disputes. In an era of overlapping foundational claims, acquisitions offer a more secure and cost-effective path for larger pharmaceutical players to consolidate intellectual property, reduce licensing dependencies, and limit exposure to future infringement risk.
The mRNA patent disputes of 2025 are not only addressing immediate questions of patent ownership but are also establishing the legal framework that will govern the protection, enforcement, and commercialization of next-generation platform technologies in the evolving post-pandemic biotech landscape. These proceedings are shaping key precedents that will impact investment strategies, international collaboration, and the speed at which novel therapies reach the market. Rather than viewing the landscape as purely adversarial, this moment presents a strategic opportunity for stakeholders to pursue licensing arrangements and cooperative partnerships that both incentivize innovation and ensure appropriate recognition of foundational intellectual property rights.
Perhaps the real breakthrough will come not from winning the battles, but from turning them into partnerships that move the entire field forward.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
