⚖ Oral Arguments, with Context

The Federal Circuit considers a patent dispute over Moderna's COVID vaccine and a government contract for about five hundred million doses. The patents concern tiny lipid particles that carry genetic material into cells. The patentholders sued Moderna, alleging its vaccine infringed those patents. Moderna answered that the Army had ordered the doses and authorized the use of patented inventions to perform the contract. Under section fourteen ninety-eight, some patent claims involving work for the United States must be brought against the government in the Court of Federal Claims rather than against its contractor. The district court applied that shield to direct infringement claims for doses distributed to government employees, but not doses distributed to the public. The parties settled other disputes while preserving this appeal. Moderna and the United States will argue that a valid government procurement with authorization to use patents is enough, regardless of who ultimately receives the product. The patentholders will argue that benefiting the public is not the same as making the vaccine for the government. There is also a separate dispute over encouraging private individuals to use the vaccine: can that alleged inducement be shielded too? Listen for the distinction between government authorization and work for the government, and for whether applying the defense could leave a gap in compensation. This appeal concerns the reach of the contractor defense, not a fresh trial of the patents' validity or the vaccine's safety. Recording note: The official file cuts off during the judge's final administrative closing word, after all advocacy has concluded. We preserve that original cutoff without reconstructing speech.

Arbutus Biopharma Corporation v. Moderna, Inc. (No. 26-1581) — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, argued November 5, 2026.