But first, a quick aside — some months ago (November 2024), a commenter had asked what I thought was a fair entry price for an investment in Moderna. At the time it was trading in the mid-$30s. I suggested that anything below $48 was a very good value bet (so it was safe to buy in), and that Moderna would in a few years rise well above — perhaps doubling. In fact, I guessed that Moderna might be an $85-plus stock by 2026.
Well… as of this moment, it sits at a only little over… $27 (but to be fair, it was over $150, just a year ago). I based my sunny view of its prospects on the strength of its mRNA vaccines generally, not just the wildly successful COVID-19 one. [And I had discounted the idea that Tangerine 2.0 would place a vax-denier at the head of HHS and FDA. I was wrong.]
Even so, I continue to hold that sunny view: mRNA vaccines are the future. And Moderna is very well-positioned to lead, after an appeals court has ruled that Moderna’s methods of manufacture do not infringe a pair of prior Alnylam patents (affirming the trial court’s view). So here is that Federal Circuit opinion, below, and a bit — but this is still going to be an $85 plus stock in a year or two:
…Alnylam Pharmaceuticals, Inc., brought two suits against Moderna, Inc., ModernaTX, Inc., and Moderna US, Inc. (collectively Moderna) in district court, alleging that Moderna’s activities involving its mRNA-based COVID-19 vaccine SPIKEVAX® infringed U.S. Patent Nos. 11,246,933 (parent) and 11,382,979 (child), issued to Alnylam as both applicant and assignee. Specifically, Alnylam alleged that Moderna’s vaccine contains a cationic lipid, SM-102, that is claimed by the asserted patents. The appeal here turns on a single issue of claim construction. The district court concluded that Alnylam had acted as lexicographer regarding the claim term “branched alkyl”….
The district court treated… [it as] a definition furnishing the governing construction of a “branched alkyl” and two related claim terms. Claim Construction Order at 1–2, Alnylam Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Moderna, Inc., No. 22-cv-335-CFC (D. Del. Aug. 21, 2023), ECF No. 125 (Order); see Transcript, at 144:7–147:8. The parties stipulated that Moderna did not infringe the asserted patent claims under that claim construction, because Moderna’s product does not meet the “branched alkyl” requirement of a carbon atom bound to at least three other carbons, and the district court entered final judgment accordingly. J.A. 5665–71; J.A. 1–2.
Alnylam appeals. We conclude that Alnylam acted as lexicographer in its requirement of a carbon bound to at least three other carbons “[u]nless otherwise specified” and that Alnylam did not otherwise specify for purposes of the asserted claims. We therefore affirm….
Onward — as on many fronts, real bioscience will win out, after the 2026 midterms are in the books. What an odd time for life sciences, between on again/off again tariffs on APIs and so on… predicting the next ten months to fourteen months will be very difficult, for would-be stock pickers.
Now you know. But do hold Moderna — for its long term leading positions. [Same, as to Merck.]
नमस्ते
Powerline Lies... 