PHARMACEUTICAL IP

  • Our Offering
    • Fractional in-house
    • Start-ups
    • Established pharma
    • International IP counsel
    • Investors
    • Due diligence
  • Fractional in-house
  • Sectors
    • Pharmaceuticals
    • Biotechnology
    • Biologics
    • Cell & gene therapies
    • AI drug discovery
    • Chemistry
  • Insights
    • Articles
    • Webinars
    • Subscribe
  • About us
    • Our team
    • Join us
    • Contact us
  • Our Offering
    • Fractional in-house
    • Start-ups
    • Established pharma
    • International IP counsel
    • Investors
    • Due diligence
  • Fractional in-house
  • Sectors
    • Pharmaceuticals
    • Biotechnology
    • Biologics
    • Cell & gene therapies
    • AI drug discovery
    • Chemistry
  • Insights
    • Articles
    • Webinars
    • Subscribe
  • About us
    • Our team
    • Join us
    • Contact us
  • Our offering
  • Fractional in-house
  • Sectors
  • Articles
  • Our team
  • Join us
  • Our offering
  • Fractional in-house
  • Sectors
  • Articles
  • Our team
  • Join us

Alnylam v. Moderna and the judicious use of definitions: The European perspective

  • Sector: Biologics, Biotechnology, Pharmaceuticals
  • 10th June 2025
When drafting a patent, seemingly innocuous "boilerplate" definitions in the description can drastically narrow your claims, as demonstrated by the Alnylam v Moderna case in the US, highlighting the critical need for precise language to protect your invention.
 

The recent decision of the US Court of Appeal of the Federal Circuit in Alnylam v Moderna relates to the ongoing complex and high-stakes dispute over mRNA vaccine delivery technology. In a blow for Alnylam, the Federal Circuit found that Moderna did not infringe Alnylam’s LNP platform patents in view of a definition of a technical term included in the description that narrowed the claims. The Federal Circuit concluded that, by including this definition in the description, Alnylam had acted as its own lexicographer and deliberately narrowed the meaning of the term. The decision in Alnylam v Moderna thus confirms the established US case law whereby the description of a patent may serve as a dictionary for the claims. The clear US case law in this area contrasts with the current uncertainty in Europe over how and if the description should be used to interpret the claims of European patent (G 1/24). As with the EBA referral in G 1/24, Alnylam v Moderna is further confirmation of the perils inherent in the overuse of boilerplate in patent specifications.

Legal background: Lexicography in US patent law

Under established US patent law doctrine, claim terms are generally given their plain and ordinary meaning as understood by a person of ordinary skill in the art. However, this presumption can be rebutted in two specific circumstances. First, where a patentee acts as their own lexicographer and clearly sets forth a definition of a claim term other than its plain and ordinary meaning. Second, where the patentee disavows the full scope of a claim term either in the specification or during prosecution (file wrapper estoppel). The threshold for establishing either exception is deliberately demanding. In particular, for the lexicography exclusion to apply, the evidence must clearly set forth or clearly redefine a claim term so as to put one reasonably skilled in the art on notice that the patentee intended to redefine the claim term (MPEP 2111.01, MPEP 2173.01, CCS Fitness, Inc. v. Brunswick Corp., CAFC 2022). 

Case Background: LNP vaccine dispute

The decision in this case relates to the ongoing patent dispute over delivery technology for mRNA-based vaccines, including the COVID vaccine. In this particular case, Alnylam brought two patent infringement suits against Moderna. Alnylam argued that Moderna’s mRNA-based COVID-19 vaccine SPIKEVAX infringed Alnylam’s patents US 11246933 and US 11382979, relating to lipid nanoparticles (LNPs) used for delivery of nucleic acids to the body. The broader LNP/COVID-19 vaccine dispute is hugely complex and a classic example of the important intersection between freedom to operate and patentability for technologies with both product and platform IP. 

The central issue in this case related to the definition of a technical term in the claims: “branched alkyl”. The claims of the patents specified “a branched alkyl, where the branching occurs at the α-position relative to the biodegradable group”. In chemistry, the term “branched alkyl” is normally understood to mean a non-straight hydrocarbon chain, which could include secondary carbons (bonded to 2 other carbons) at branch points. However, contrasting with the normal definition, Alnylam’s patent specification provided its own, more restrictive, definition of the term. The specification stated that “Unless otherwise specified, the term ‘branched alkyl’ refer[s] to an alkyl group in which one carbon atom in the group (1) is bound to at least three other carbon atoms and (2) is not a ring atom of a cyclic group.“

The District Court found that it was clear from this definition that Alnylam was acting as its own lexicographer for the term and had narrowed the meaning of “branched alkyl” as used in the claims to mean an alkyl group in which one carbon atom in the group is bound to at least three other carbon atoms. Under this narrower definition, Moderna was found not to infringe the patents. 

On appeal, the Federal Circuit confirmed the District Court finding. The Federal Circuit particularly noted a number of facts that supported the narrowing effect of the description definition. First, the relevant sentence appeared under the title “Definitions.” Second, the term to be defined, “branched alkyl,” was set off in quotation marks. Third, the sentence used the term “refer to,” which generally conveys an intent for the sentence to be definitional. Fourth, elsewhere in the Definitions section, Alnylam had used non-limiting terms that contrasted with the “refer to” language at issue. Finally, the inclusion of the phrase “[u]nless otherwise specified” suggested that the rest of the sentence laid out a generally applicable rule or definition.

The Federal Circuit concluded by explaining the common policy rationale behind its strict approach: “There are familiar reasons that definitions in the patent context deserve at least as much force: Public notice is a central policy, public reliance is a known reality, precision is at a premium, and the applicant has ample control over provision of definitions, so when a definition is expressly stated, the public is generally entitled to expect clear notice of exceptions” (page 12).

The Federal Circuit thus affirmed the District Court’s claim construction and judgment of noninfringement. 

The European perspective

The US Federal Circuit’s clear decision and reasoning in Alnylam v Moderna contrasts with the current uncertainty in Europe surrounding claim interpretation and the importance, or otherwise, of description definitions. It is hoped that the pending referral to the Enlarged Board of Appeal (EBA) in G 1/24 will resolve some of the uncertainty in Europe. 

G1/24 arose from a Philip Morris patent for heat-not-burn e-cigarettes requiring “a gathered sheet of aerosol-forming material,” where the key novelty question was whether prior art disclosing tobacco that “may be spirally wound” anticipated a “gathered” sheet of tobacco. The definition of the term “gathered” tobacco as understood in the art would not normally be understood to include spirally wound tobacco. However, for reasons lost to the mists of time, the description of the patent defined “gathered” more broadly as “convoluted, folded, or otherwise compressed or constricted” tobacco. Under this broader definition, the term was broad enough to encompass the prior art’s spirally wound tobacco. In view of a cited conflict on the case law on how the description should be used to interpret the claims, the EBA has been asked to clarify whether the description should be referred to when interpreting the claims and whether the specification can be a dictionary of definitions for the patent, i.e. as the US would put it, whether a patentee may be their own lexicographer. 

The question of whether a patentee can be their own lexicographer is different to the questions of whether the claims should be read in the context of the description as a whole and/or whether the description should be used to resolve a lack of clarity in the claims. However, we await the EBA’s interpretation and decision on the case. 

Final thoughts

Whatever the outcome of the case in G1/24, the take-home message is nonetheless the same as that for Alnylam v Moderna. Patentees in both the US and Europe should be exceedingly wary of using boilerplate definitions in their specifications. As shown in Alnylam v Moderna, an overly narrow definition may lead to problems of enforcement. Equally, as highlighted in G 1/24, an overly broad definition may lead to unforeseen validity issues. In Europe, amendment of description definitions, e.g. to bring the description in line with the claims, or to describe background prior art, also presents the additional risk of contravening the EPO’s strict approach to added matter. 

The use of boilerplate definitions of commonly understood terms in a patent specification is in most circumstances unnecessary. If a patentee wishes to narrow or broaden the scope of their invention to something different, the best and safest place to do this is the claims, and not via the back-door of description definitions. 

However, there are cases where definitional language is required, for example in Europe unusual parameters must be defined. Interestingly, the decision of the Federal Circuit in Alnylam v Moderna case contrasts with that in Baxalta Inc. v. Genentech (CAFC, 2022), in which a narrowing definition of “antibody” was found not to limit the claims, in view of the more general tone of the definitional statements. What Alnylam v Moderna really teaches us therefore is, not that all definitions should be avoided at all cost, but instead that we should be cautious in how definitions are presented and to provide definitions in a manner as non-limiting as possible.

Author: Rose Hughes

Further reading

  • Freedom to operate versus patentability in biotech: What the difference is and why it matters
  • Beware of boilerplate: Practical lessons for patent drafting from G1/24 (Claim interpretation)
  • The description of a patent should “always” be used to interpret the claims (DexCom vs. Abbott, UPC_CFI_230/2023)
  • Don’t shoot yourself in the foot: European file history in US patent claim interpretation (K-fee v Nespresso)
  • US Supreme Court decision in Amgen v Sanofi: The European Perspective

This post is based on a previous article on IPKat.

Related insights...

All to play for in CRISPR “first-to-invent” US patent battle as Federal Circuit instructs PTAB to reconsider (Regents v. Broad Institute, Nos. 22-1594, 22-1653)

  • 28th May 2025
Navigating the complex CRISPR patent landscape remains a challenge. The Federal Circuit’s decision in Regents v. Broad Institute is another in the ongoing battle between the inventors of CRISPR.

OpenAI’s large language model (LLM) patents

  • 29th April 2025
For tech innovators seeking to understand evolving intellectual property strategies, OpenAI’s recent pivot offers essential guidance: far from relying solely on trade secrets, the AI leader is now aggressively pursuing and accelerating patent grants, signaling a significant shift.

Strict US written description requirement applied to CAR-T-cell therapy (Juno v Kite)

  • 29th April 2025
The decision in Juno v Kite is not a surprise in light of the recent CAFC case law on written description for antibodies, and represents yet another nail in the coffin of functional genus claiming for biomolecules in the US.

No back-pedalling on prosecution disclaimers (Azurity v. Alkem, Fed. Cir. Case No. 23-1977)

  • 22nd April 2025
In Azurity v. Alkem  the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) affirmed the District of Delaware’s ruling that Alkem’s antibiotic formulation did not infringe patent claims owned by Azurity. The CAFC found that Azurity clearly and unmistakably disclaimed the presence of a key ingredient from the claimed formulation during prosecution. Given that Alkem’s formulation included this ingredient, the generic…

New USPTO Guidance on the use of AI in precision medicine

  • 17th September 2024
The USPTO recently issued Guidance on the patentability of AI. In the US, claims directed solely to a “judicial exception”, in the form of an abstract idea, natural phenomena, or law of nature, are not eligible for patent protection (35 U.S.C. 101). However, the case law on subject matter eligibility is infamously difficult to apply. The new Guidance seeks to provide some clarity…

Don’t shoot yourself in the foot: European file history in US patent claim interpretation (K-fee v Nespresso)

  • 1st February 2024
In the US, the principle of file wrapper estoppel is well established. Submissions made in US patent prosecution may be highly influential for claim interpretation post-grant. Additionally, as recently highlighted in K-fee v Nespresso (Case No. 22-2042, Fed. Cir. Dec. 26, 2023), file wrapper estoppel in the US does not stop at the US file wrapper. Submission made in other…

US Supreme Court decision in Amgen v Sanofi: The European Perspective

  • 1st June 2023
The US Supreme Court recently ruled in the high profile Amgen versus Sanofi patent dispute. Agreeing with the Federal Circuit (No. 20-1074, Fed. Cir. 2021), the Supreme Court found Amgen’s function and epitope defined PCSK9 antibody patents to lack enablement (Amgen Inc v Sanofi, No. 21-757). The US Supreme Court was keen to stress that its reasoning did…
All Insights

evolve® is a trading entity of Evolve Intellectual Property Limited. Evolve Intellectual Property Limited is regulated by the Intellectual Property Regulation Board (IPReg). Details of the UK professional rules can be found on the IPReg website

registered address: 49 Greek Street, London, England, W1D 4EG

website out of house

© 2025 All Rights Reserved

Keep in touch

Subscribe

Contact Us