More details are coming to light in the patent dispute between Curevac and Biontech. As early as April 8 last year, the German Patent and Trademark Office sent a negative interim decision with file number 12 2021 000 007.0 to Curevac’s patent attorney.
The report is available to Business Insider. Last year, Curevac wanted to extend a basic patent that expires this year. This patent is part of the lawsuit against Biontech, which involves violations of a total of four intellectual property rights.
“This is done with a so-called protection certificate, an extension of the term of a patent by a maximum of five years,” explains patent attorney Ute Kilger from the law firm Boehmert und Boehmert in Berlin. “Without this protection certificate, Curevac will not be able to sue for infringements of the patent in the future, since it has expired.”
In the interim decision, the Patent and Trademark Office comes to the conclusion that Curevac’s patent does not protect Biontech’s vaccine specifically enough. This can also mean that the vaccine does not make use of the patent. The preliminary assessment states that the conditions for granting the regulation are not met.
“Curevac’s patent EP1857122B1 relates to a very fundamental idea of making the mRNA, which is unstable per se, more stable through changes,” says Kilger. It is not unusual for Curevac to sue. This happens regularly when biotech companies do research in a similar field. This may also only be the beginning of a wave of lawsuits against Biontech.
In his reply, which is also available to Business Insider, Curevac’s patent attorney argued, among other things, that the Patent and Trademark Office had “misunderstood” the situation. He called for an oral hearing in which the issues at issue could be discussed. The parties involved will meet in mid-October to negotiate the situation.
It is unclear why Curevac filed a lawsuit against Biontech at the Düsseldorf Regional Court before the hearing. If the Tübingen company did not receive the protection certificate, an important basis for their lawsuit would be lost. What remained were three other intellectual property rights that they see violated.