Pharma Companies Looking Ahead to Novel Vaccine IP

by eugenestrupinsky • December 4, 2020

On Behalf of Lurie|Strupinsky, LLP | Dec 4, 2020 | Firm News |

Over the past nine months, Moderna, Inc. and Pfizer Inc., have raced to find a cure for COVID-19 – the global pandemic that has plagued our world. Now, these two companies have created a cutting-edge vaccine using mRNA technology, in record-breaking time, and both companies are looking to win broad patent protection for the future of mRNA vaccines.

As the pandemic continues, the companies are unlikely to enforce aggressively any mRNA patents that they may secure. However, these companies’ patents will give them market-control as competitors eye mRNA vaccine development for other treatments.

According to University of Illinois College of Law professor Jacob S. Sherkow, “[p]rior to the development of their vaccines, [mRNA] was a completely untested, unchartered mechanism of action for a vaccine, so it seems like Moderna and Pfizer are on track to get a bunch of pretty broad patents covering mRNA vaccines generally. Some of the intellectual property foundations that are being laid now are going to play an increasingly important role with respect to the development of vaccines in the future.”

Alston & Bird LLP partner Matthew W. Howell said that Section 101 of the Patent Act will not likely provide patent eligibility for the vaccine’s genetic code, but the delivery systems the companies are using should be.

**Vaccine delivery systems are generally particulate, e.g. emulsions, microparticles, iscoms and liposomes, and mainly function to target associated antigens into antigen presenting cells (APC), including macrophages and dendritic cells.

The companies are likely to cash out on these delivery systems in the long run, as any company hoping to use mRNA technology will probably need licenses from Moderna and Pfizer.

In the short term, Moderna’s patents face some uncertainty. As we blogged about in early September, two federal agencies are currently investigating whether Moderna’s patents featured proper funding disclosures. Additionally, Moderna recently lost a bid to invalidate an Arbutus Biopharma Corp. patent covering certain technology allegedly used in its vaccine, although it had previously won two other patent suits against Arbutus.

“I think that’s what Moderna is really concerned about — not what’s going on now, but further applications of the platform technology they’ve developed or co-developed,” said Saint Louis University School of Law professor Ana Santos Rutschman. “It’s the post-COVID landscape that we’re already looking at.”

< Older Post

Newer Post >

Filing for Bankruptcy: Where to Begin

By Khalifeh & Strupinsky, P.C. • March 27, 2026

Learn how to begin filing for bankruptcy with Khalifeh & Strupinsky, P.C. in Brooklyn and New York, NY. Get professional legal guidance for your financial future.

When to Consider Mediation vs. Litigation in Business Disputes

By Eugene Strupinsky • March 19, 2026

Explore when businesses in Brooklyn and New York, NY should choose mediation or litigation with guidance from Khalifeh & Strupinsky, P.C., experienced in dispute resolution.

What Bankruptcy Can and Cannot Do

By Eugene Strupinsky • March 16, 2026

Discover what bankruptcy can and cannot do for your finances. Khalifeh & Strupinsky, P.C. in Brooklyn and New York, NY provides tailored legal guidance for your situation.

The Legal Side of Co‑op and Condo Transfers in NYC

By Eugene Strupinsky • March 12, 2026

Learn about the legal complexities of co-op and condo transfers in NYC with Khalifeh & Strupinsky, P.C., serving Brooklyn and New York, NY. Contact us for legal advice.

Are Communications with AI Privileged?: Judge Rakoff delivers opinion in United States v. Heppner

By Kayla Gaisi • March 10, 2026

As generative AI becomes increasingly integrated into our daily lives, it continues to raise legal questions that courts can no longer ignore. This month, the question of whether communications between criminal defendants and public AI are protected from government inspection was answered by Judge Jed Rakoff. That answer was an unequivocal 'no.' In the case at hand, defendant Bradely Heppner was charged with fraud and arrested a month later, in November 2025. When the FBI executed a search warrant at his home, they seized documents containing communications between him and the public AI platform Claude AI. According to Heppner's counsel, these communications reflected a defense strategy Heppner had generated in anticipation of potential indictment. Heppner asserted that these documents were either protected under attorney-client privilege or by the work product doctrine, arguing that he had used Claude for the purpose of obtaining legal advice and had shared these outputs with his attorneys. However, Judge Rakoff rejected both arguments. Attorney-client privilege applies only to communications between a client and a professional who owes them fiduciary duties and is subject to discipline. It is a socially valuable human relationship. Regardless of how advanced an AI systems is, it cannot meet this definition. Claude is not a human attorney and does not have an attorney-client relationship with its users, so communications with it cannot qualify for attorney-client privilege. Aside from this, Rakoff listed other reasons why Heppner's communications with Claude are not considered confidential. Firstly, Claude is a public AI system whose privacy policy discloses that communications can be shared with third parties including "governmental regulatory authorities." Secondly, as his counsel admitted, Heppner sought legal advice from Claude on his own volition, not at their direction. Even if Heppner received legal advice and later shared that with his counsel, that does not render the initially unprivileged communication privileged. The related work product doctrine fared no better for Heppner. This doctrine protects materials prepared by attorneys in anticipation of litigation from discovery by opposing parties. Here, the AI-generated documents were not prepared by or at the behest of counsel and did not reflect counsel's strategy. Thus, they fell outside the scope of the doctrine. Judge Rakoff's ruling matters because it maintains the narrowness of evidentiary privileges that is necessary for protecting the judicial system's truth-seeking function. Extending privilege to communications with public AI systems could create a dangerous loophoole, one where parties could shield discoverable information by filtering it through a chatbot. But given Rakoff's ruling, the main takeaway here is that attorneys should explicitly advise their clients not to share personal or legal information with public AI systems. Despite how routine it has now become for many to ask public AI personal questions, these communications are not confidential, and may ultimately be used as evidence in court.