The mRNA wars are escalating with new claims from Arbutus

Arbutus and Genevant Sciences, are no strangers to the Unified Patent Court. Last year, the two companies filed two claims against Moderna at the The Hague local division as part of a global litigation campaign. However, the dispute did not last long. In March 2026, the parties reached a settlement. At that time, Genevant and Arbutus announced a $2.25 billion global settlement with Moderna.

In July, Arbutus then announced that it has received approximately $178 million from Moderna as its share of the non-contingent payment under the March settlement. In the same breath, the US biotech company and its exclusive licensee announced that it was expanding the existing litigation against BioNTech and Pfizer in the US to a global scale.

Arbutus and Genevant had already commenced enforcement proceedings in the US District Court for the District of New Jersey, seeking compensation for Pfizer’s and BioNTech’s infringement of five US patents relating to the manufacture and sale of mRNA-LNP COVID-19 vaccines.

This was followed by a claim before the Federal Court of Canada and two claims before the local division in The Hague. Last Friday, further details of the UPC claims came to light. The first UPC claim, UPC-CFI-0002562/2026, is based on EP 4 241 767. Arbutus and Genevent had previously used this patent against Moderna. It is the subject of an opposition filed by Moderna, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Arrowhouse GmbH and Keltie at the EPO. This opposition is due to be heard in January 2027.

The second lawsuit,UPC-CFI-0002566/2026, is based on EP 4 495 237, a divisional patent of EP 767. To date, no EPO opposition has been filed against EP 237. Both patents protect the LNP technology developed by Arbutus and Genevant.

Long-arm relief

In a press release, the two companies announced that they “are seeking monetary relief, as well as injunctions against Pfizer/BioNTech’s mRNA-LNP COVID-19 vaccines and any other products that would infringe the asserted patents”.

The panel of the local division in The Hague dealing with the UPC claims consists of presiding judge Edger Brinkman, Margot Kokke and Samuel Granata. This is the same panel that previously heard Arbutus’s claims against Moderna.

The UPC proceedings seek relief in Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, the Netherlands, Portugal, Romania, Slovenia and Sweden. Arbutus and Genevant are also seeking long-arm relief in relation to Poland and Spain.

Hotspot for biotech cases

Under the leadership of Brinkman and Kokke, the local division in The Hague has developed into a hotspot for pharmaceutical and biotech cases at the UPC. As with the new claims that Arbutus and Genevant have brough, the court will hear most of the lawsuits concerning mRNA patents.

In 2025, for example, GSK sued Moderna, as well as BioNTech and Pfizer. The first showdown is due to take place in early September. On 1 January, the local division will hear GSK’s first claim against Moderna. Two days later, the claim based on the same patent against BioNTech and Pfizer will follow.

A hearing scheduled for 30 September concerning a further GSK claim against all three manufacturers of Covid-19 vaccines has been postponed for the time being. Both related patents have been revoked by the EPO. In one case, the UPC now intends to await the written grounds before deciding whether to stay the proceedings entirely until the validity has been clarified.

Brinkhof again without Vossius

The Dutch IP boutique Brinkhof is once again leading the UPC proceedings on behalf of Arbutus and Genevant. Mark van Gardingen and Koen Bijvank are in charge. The team also includes counsel Rik Lambers and associates Lilia Bouzoraa and Manon Brenters.

As in the dispute against Moderna, lawyers from Vossius & Partner were once again not involved. Vossius and Brinkhof usually handle UPC cases together under their joint brand, Vossius & Brinkhof UPC litigators, unless clients request a different arrangement or conflicts prevent them from cooperating.

The latter was already the case with the proceedings against Moderna, as Vossius represents Merck Sharp & Dohme in the opposition against Arbutus’s EP 2 279 254; the German firm was therefore unable to act alongside its close Dutch partner firm. Vossius now also represents Arrowhouse in the strawman opposition against EP 767.

HRM but not Powell Gilbert

According to the UPC case search, BioNTech relies solely on Hoyng ROKH Monegier in both of Arbutus’ cases. To date, the firm has worked alongside Powell Gilbert in most cases, such as those against GSK.

Powell Gilbert also has an excellent relationship with BioNTech and is leading the cases against GSK. However, it appears that the UK firm is not involved in the case against Arbutus at this stage.

The HRM team is led by German partner Christine Kanz and Dutch partner Theo Bloome. The team also comprises partner Mirko Weinert, as well as Max von Leitner, Valentin Wagner, Tung-Gia Du, Ling-Ling Dorsch, Carolin Wollschlaeger, Lisa-Marie Rauschendorfer, Laura Marie Amels and Julia Hindges. Medical biologists Heike Siegert and Kamilla Ripkens complete the team.

Another key adviser to BioNTech is the Munich-based patent attorney firm ZSP. The firm is also involved in the UPC cases against GSK. At this stage, it is not known whether ZSP will be involved in the cases against Arbutus and Genevant.

Pfizer and Clifford Chance

Pfizer is once again relying on Clifford Chance. Düsseldorf-based partner Tobias Hessel is leading the team. Lisa Philipps and Andrea Abele complete the team.

Clifford Chance also represents Pfizer in cases against Promosome and Enanta Pharmaceuticals. Both cases are pending before the Munich local division.

In other cases, such as the claims brought by GSK, Pfizer relies on a Benelux team from Winston Taylor.