This morning the Federal Circuit released two precedential opinions in patent cases involving two of the same companies. In the opinions, the court addresses standing, anticipation, and obviousness. Here are the introductions to the opinions.
ModernaTx, Inc. v. Arbutus Biopharma Corp. (Precedential)
ModernaTx, Inc. (“Moderna”) appeals from the decision of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“Board”) holding that claims 7–8, 10–11, 13, and 16–20 of U.S. Patent 9,364,435 are not unpatentable as obvious. See Moderna Therapeutics, Inc. v. Protiva Biotherapeutics, Inc., IPR2018-00739, 2019 Pat. App. LEXIS 13612 (Sept. 11, 2019) (“Board Decision”). Arbutus Biopharma Corporation (“Arbutus”) cross-appeals from the Board’s decision holding that claims 1–6, 9, 12, and 14–15 are unpatentable as anticipated. Id. For the reasons provided below, we dismiss Moderna’s appeal for lack of standing. Regarding Arbutus’s cross appeal, we affirm.
ModernaTx, Inc. v. Arbutus Biopharma Corp. (Precedential)
ModernaTx, Inc. (“Moderna”) appeals from the decision of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office Patent Trial and Appeal Board (the “Board”) holding that the claims of U.S. Patent 8,058,069 (“’069 patent”) are not unpatentable as obvious. See Moderna Therapeutics, Inc. v. Protiva Biotherapeutics, Inc., IPR2019-00554, 2020 WL 4237232 (July 23, 2020) (“Board Decision”). For the reasons provided below, we affirm.