London, May 9, 2026, 18:05 BST
A U.S. federal judge has tossed Acuitas Therapeutics Inc.’s attempt to shield Pfizer and BioNTech’s Comirnaty Covid-19 vaccine from GSK’s patent claims, handing the British pharma giant a procedural victory in the ongoing mRNA legal fight. Judge Gregory B. Williams sided with GSK, dismissing the Acuitas case on grounds that the court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction—essentially, it didn’t have the authority to weigh in as presented, according to Bloomberg Law on Friday.
The decision keeps the spotlight fixed on the main Delaware showdown involving GSK, Pfizer and BioNTech, instead of letting a supplier-driven lawsuit muddy the waters. Back in 2024, GSK filed suit against Pfizer and BioNTech, claiming Comirnaty stepped on patents for mRNA vaccine technology the company says it created well before the pandemic. Pfizer responded at the time, vowing to defend itself, while BioNTech had no comment.
Messenger RNA, or mRNA, triggers an immune response by carrying genetic instructions. The pandemic’s sales surge is over, yet these patents remain significant—they influence royalties tied to Covid, flu, and combination vaccines as pharmaceutical companies extend the technology into fresh applications.
Acuitas moved first in Delaware, filing a declaratory judgment complaint on Jan. 2, 2025, naming GlaxoSmithKline Biologicals SA and GlaxoSmithKline LLC. The company’s suit asks the court to rule it does not infringe, and that five GSK patents are invalid, according to a docket summary.
The same patents are at the heart of GSK’s larger lawsuit naming Pfizer, Pharmacia & Upjohn, and BioNTech entities tied to multiple Comirnaty formulations, as detailed by a vaccine litigation tracker. The tracker separately highlights ongoing GSK litigation against Moderna, targeting both its Spikevax Covid vaccine and the mRESVIA RSV shot. It’s a snapshot of how mRNA patent disputes are proliferating in the vaccine industry.
Even so, the decision doesn’t touch the core issues. There’s no answer yet on whether Comirnaty actually infringes GSK’s patents, or if those patents will hold up under scrutiny. Pfizer and BioNTech remain free to contest the main claims.
GSK has previously tapped funds from a different mRNA patent dispute. Back in August 2025, CureVac and GSK resolved their litigation with Pfizer and BioNTech. According to Reuters, the deal nets CureVac and GSK a $740 million upfront payment plus royalties. Notably, GSK’s own separate lawsuit targeting Pfizer and BioNTech remains in play.
GSK, for its part, put its cut at $370 million upfront, with a 1% royalty on U.S. sales by BioNTech and Pfizer for influenza, Covid-19, and related mRNA combination vaccines starting in 2025. The company also flagged a possible additional $130 million and royalties outside the U.S., contingent on BioNTech’s CureVac buyout going through.
Chief Executive Luke Miels sees the patent fights as helpful, but not the real hurdle for investors. Last month, Reuters said Miels is under pressure to prove GSK’s pipeline can get to that ambitious target—over 40 billion pounds in sales by 2031. That’s as the company’s blockbuster HIV drug dolutegravir heads for a 2028 patent cliff.
GSK posted first-quarter sales of 7.6 billion pounds, with core EPS landing at 46.5 pence. The company left its 2026 turnover growth target unchanged at 3% to 5%, noted it’s already completed 1.7 billion pounds of its planned 2 billion pound buyback, and announced a 17 pence dividend for the quarter.
Still, the legal victory might only go so far. Tossing the case on jurisdiction alone doesn’t mean GSK gets any royalty revenue, and core patent claims could end up trimmed, tossed out or sidestepped. With the court’s reasoning sealed, investors are left guessing just how much the decision actually benefits GSK.
GSK’s U.S. shares ended Friday around $50.41, flat on the session, as London markets remained shuttered for the weekend. Investors didn’t see enough in the ruling to move the needle on GSK’s pipeline concerns, looming patent expiries, or its sales ambitions.
