Patent infringement occurs when an individual or commercial entity engages in unauthorized acts such as making, using, selling or importing a patented invention without the consent of the patent holder. This infringement can result in significant financial loss and protracted litigation. These disputes often involve large corporations and can result in substantial damages being awarded to the patent holder.

 

In this article, we delve into the top 6 biggest patent infringement cases based on the amount of the penalty and the significance and publicity of the case. Examining these famous cases reveals insights into the difficulties of patent law and underlines the importance of protecting intellectual property rights.

1. Pfizer and BioNTech

A German court has sided with Moderna in a dispute over whether Pfizer and BioNTech had illegally infringed their rival’s patent with their Covid-19 vaccine. The Düsseldorf Regional Court  on Wednesday (5 March) that New-York headquartered Pfizer and Mainz-based BioNTech did infringe two of Moderna’s European messenger ribonucleic acid (mRNA) patents with their Covid-19 Comirnaty vaccine. Massachusetts-headquartered pharmaceutical company Moderna first filed a  against Pfizer and BioNTech in August 2022 with the German regional court, alleging the duo had illegally infringed two patents – EP 3 590 949 and EP 3 718 565 – that had been filed by Moderna between 2010 and 2016 for its mRNA technology. The lawsuit sought damages for sales made by the duo after 8 March 2022, but did not apply for any injunctive relief in recognition of the need to “ensure continued access to these lifesaving vaccines”.

A PROMISE

During the early stages of the pandemic, Moderna promised not to enforce patents relating to Covid-19. However, once vaccine supply shortages in many parts of the world had lessened, the company issued another press release in March 2022, stating: “Moderna is expanding its patent pledge to never enforce Covid-19 patents in the Gavi COVAX AMC for 92 low- and middle-income countries”. In an August 2022 press release announcing the lawsuit, the company stated that it was under the expectation that following this update, Pfizer and BioNTech would honour its intellectual property rights and pursue a commercially reasonable licence for markets outside of the AMC 92 countries. IMITATION IS NOT FLATTERY In the suit, Moderna contended that Pfizer and BioNTech had copied two essential features of Moderna’s patented technologies in their development of the Comirnaty vaccine. Despite having options that would have “steered clear of Moderna’s innovative path”, Pfizer and BioNTech had allegedly chosen a vaccine containing the exact same mRNA chemical modification as Moderna’s own vaccine, Spikevax. The company also claimed that, though again having many options available to them, the pair had replicated Moderna’s method of encoding the full-length spike protein in a lipid nanoparticle formulation for a coronavirus.

JUDGMENT

In 2023, the European Patent Office (EPO) revoked Moderna’s EP 565 patent, and a Dutch court invalidated EP 949. Objections to EP 949 were also filed with the EPO around the same time, leading to the suspension of the German court proceedings. However, in May 2024, after the EPO upheld EP 949 with minor changes, the Düsseldorf court resumed the infringement case for that patent. During the proceedings, BioNTech and Pfizer agreed that they had infringed Moderna’s patent EP 949, but argued the company’s October 2020 pledge authorising its use was valid until the World Health Organisation (WHO) declared the end of the Covid-19 pandemic on 5 May 2023. This argument was not accepted by the Düsseldorf court, which agreed that Moderna’s follow-up press release in March 2022 had revoked patent use permissions. The court instructed BioNTech and Pfizer to provide estimates for the profits obtained from the patent infringement, as well as the extent of use. Compensation owed to Moderna will be decided in a separate proceeding. A spokesperson for BioNTech told reporters: “Today’s decision has no immediate impact on Pfizer, BioNTech, or Comirnaty. We continue to believe that EP949 is invalid, and therefore not infringed, and will appeal the Düsseldorf District Court’s decision on this patent.”

OVER IN THE US

Moderna’s victory in Germany was, however, tainted by a decision issued on the same day by the US Patent and Trademark Office’s Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB). The PTAB determined that two of Moderna’s mRNA patents are invalid. Pfizer and BioNTech had argued before the Board that the patents were “unimaginably broad” and that the “basic idea” was “known long before” Moderna’s invention date. Moderna had hit back, stating their inventions “changed fundamental assumptions in pandemic preparedness”. Moderna sued Pfizer and BioNTech in a Massachusetts federal court in August 2022 for alleged patent infringement. That lawsuit is still ongoing.

2. Polaroid vs Kodak – $925 million

‍

Although this case originated in the mid-1970s, it remains one of the most significant patent disputes to date. Polaroid took Kodak to court in 1976, accusing it of infringing on 12 patents relating to instant photography. The pioneering instant camera and film company, now defunct, sought $12 billion in damages, a staggering sum even by today's standards. In October 1990, Kodak was obliged to pay Polaroid $909 million in damages. This was later adjusted to $925 million, including interest. The two companies finally buried the hatchet under this monumental sum in July 1991, agreeing to drop all appeals of the 1990 federal verdict.

 

3. Apple vs Samsung – $1.05 billion

‍

This patent war doesn’t need any introduction. Everyone in the field of patents knows the sue-and-counter-sue game between Apple and Samsung. Apple sued Samsung in April 2011 for a patent infringement suit, and by July 2012, both companies were involved in 50 lawsuits around the globe. The main issue was Samsung's copying of the look and feel of Apple’s products, particularly the iPhone. In August 2012, a U.S. jury awarded Apple $1.05 billion in damages, making it one of the largest patent infringement awards in history. The case continued to see appeals and adjustments to the awarded amounts, reflecting the ongoing tensions between these tech giants.

 

                             

4. Carnegie Mellon University vs Marvell technology – $1.17 billion

‍

In 2009, Carnegie Mellon University filed a lawsuit against Marvell Technology Group, accusing the semiconductor company of infringing two of its patents related to hard disk drive technology. After a lengthy trial, a jury awarded Carnegie Mellon $1.17 billion in December 2012. The case highlighted the critical role of academic institutions in innovation and the importance of protecting their intellectual property. Marvell appealed the decision, but the final settlement in 2016 still reflected a substantial payout.

 

 

5. Centocor vs Abbott laboratories – $1.67 billion

‍

In June 2009 Centocor, a subsidiary of Johnson & Johnson, won a patent infringement lawsuit against Abbott Laboratories. The case concerned Abbott's breakthrough drug Humira, which Centocor claimed infringed its patents for antibody technology used to treat autoimmune diseases. The jury awarded Centocor $1.67 billion in damages, including both past sales and a royalty on future sales. The case underscored the high stakes involved in the pharmaceutical industry, where patent protection is crucial to ensuring a return on investment in research and development.

 

 

6. Idenix Pharmaceuticals vs Gilead Sciences – $2.54 billion

‍

In 2016, Idenix Pharmaceuticals LLC won a patent infringement lawsuit against Gilead Sciences Inc. over hepatitis C drugs. Idenix claimed that Gilead's two major blockbuster drugs, Sovaldi and Harvoni, infringed on their patents. The jury sided with Idenix and awarded over $2.54 billion, which is the largest patent infringement damages in history. Guidelines:

 

Preventive Measures and Best Practices

Implementing proactive strategies can significantly decrease the possibility of patent infringement. To protect your entity’s identity and the integrity of your inventions, consider:

Purchasing patent infringement insurance as a financial safeguard against potential legal costs.

Documenting every stage of the invention process thoroughly, ensuring clear evidence of novelty and non-obviousness.

Regularly monitoring the market to identify any unauthorized usage of your patented technology, thus asserting your exclusive rights.

Educate your employees and partners about the territorial scope and limitations of your patents to prevent inadvertent infringement.

 

Conclusion:

Understanding infringement is vital for protecting intellectual property. Knowing what constitutes infringement is important, whether it’s a design or utility patent. Remember, infringement can range from direct to contributory, and each scenario requires a different approach for resolution. Stay informed to make sure your innovations — or how you incorporate others’ ideas — respect the bounds of intellectual property rights.