Case 1:22-cv-02229-MKV Document 1 Filed 03/18/22 Page 1 of 42
`
`ACUITAS THERAPEUTICS INC.,
`
`
`Plaintiffs,
`
`
`
`
`GENEVANT SCIENCES GMBH, AND
`ARBUTUS BIOPHARMA CORP.
`
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
`
`
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`
`
`
`
`
`C.A. No. 22-_______
`
`
`
`
`
`v.
`
`Defendants.
`
`
`
`COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY JUDGMENT OF
`NON-INFRINGEMENT AND INVALIDITY
`
`Acuitas Therapeutics Inc. (“Acuitas”), for its Complaint against Genevant Sciences GmbH
`
`(“Genevant”) and Arbutus Biopharma Corp. (“Arbutus”), alleges as follows:
`
`NATURE OF THE ACTION
`
`1.
`
`COVID-19 has presented the worst public health crisis in a century. Two years
`
`later, however, the pandemic is receding. That is in large part due to the amazing success story of
`
`the mRNA vaccines against the virus that causes COVID-19. Those vaccines exist only because
`
`of decades of hard work and ingenuity by the Plaintiff, Acuitas, and others, to develop the
`
`technology that allowed the rapid development of a vaccine to combat the pandemic.
`
`2.
`
`Traditional vaccines create immunity by injecting a patient with pieces of the virus,
`
`or an inactive form of that virus. The vaccines that Acuitas helped to develop utilize messenger
`
`RNA (“mRNA”) technology, do not require injection of the virus, and were developed much more
`
`quickly than traditional vaccines. All living organisms, including both humans and viruses, make
`
`proteins, which are the workhorses that complete the tasks needed by that organism. In humans
`
`1
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-02229-MKV Document 1 Filed 03/18/22 Page 2 of 42
`
`the “blueprint” for these proteins is carried in genes (i.e., DNA), but that blueprint needs to be
`
`converted into an mRNA message that tells the body to make a particular protein.
`
`3.
`
`mRNA vaccines work by introducing into a person the mRNA message that
`
`instructs the body to make a foreign protein that is itself a piece of a virus. When that viral protein
`
`is made, or “expressed,” by the person’s cells, that person’s immune system then recognizes that
`
`the protein is foreign and develops an immune response to it. If that person is later infected with
`
`the virus itself, his or her immune system is primed to protect against or minimize the significance
`
`of the viral infection. Because the mRNA contained in the vaccine represents a protein that is only
`
`a piece of the virus, the entire virus is never introduced into the body and there is thus no risk of
`
`infection from the vaccine.
`
`4.
`
`For all of its advantages, however, working with mRNA presents prodigious
`
`challenges. First, mRNA is exceptionally fragile and, when injected into the body, breaks down
`
`extremely quickly. Second, mRNA is too large a molecule to enter into human cells on its own.
`
`An mRNA vaccine therefore requires a delivery system that protects the mRNA after it is injected
`
`into the person and transports the mRNA into the person’s cells.
`
`5.
`
`In the decade before COVID-19 emerged, Acuitas worked to solve that delivery-
`
`system problem: it painstakingly engineered a microscopic sphere of fats called a Lipid
`
`Nanoparticle, or “LNP,” that can envelop and protect the mRNA. These mRNA-LNPs protect the
`
`fragile mRNA, allow it to cross the membrane of a human cell, and then release the mRNA so that
`
`it can be used to create the proteins that will in turn generate an immune response. One of Acuitas’s
`
`mRNA-LNPs
`
`is used, under
`
`license,
`
`in Pfizer and BioNTech’s COVID-19 vaccine,
`
`COMIRNATY®, which has been a global success in protecting people from COVID-19. To date,
`
`over 320 million doses of COMIRNATY® have been administered in the United States.
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-02229-MKV Document 1 Filed 03/18/22 Page 3 of 42
`
`6.
`
`The defendants here, Arbutus and Genevant, had nothing to do with that success.
`
`Neither has a COVID-19 vaccine, neither has created any component of such a vaccine, and neither
`
`has commercialized an LNP that can effectively wrap and protect any mRNA molecule. On the
`
`contrary, only after COMIRNATY® achieved worldwide commercial success did Arbutus and
`
`Genevant emerge to make the spurious claim that COMIRNATY® may infringe Arbutus’s patents,
`
`and, on information and belief, to demand hundreds of millions, if not billions, of dollars in wholly
`
`unjustified payments. Arbutus and Genevant seek the benefits flowing from COMIRNATY®
`
`without having borne any of the burden of developing it. Their claim to rights in—and payment
`
`for—COMIRNATY® is baseless.
`
`7.
`
`What is now Arbutus was originally founded as Inex Pharmaceuticals Inc. in the
`
`early 1990s, by leading LNP scientists Dr. Pieter Cullis, Dr. Thomas Madden, and Dr. Michael
`
`Hope, to develop therapeutics incorporating lipid-based nanomaterials. This research led to the
`
`development of anticancer therapeutics that provided greater potency in fighting tumors while
`
`reducing the side effects often seen with such drugs. Subsequently, Inex (later known as Tekmira
`
`Pharmaceuticals Corp.) developed lipid nanoparticles to deliver new classes of drugs based on a
`
`type of nucleic acid called small interfering RNA, or “siRNA,” which are short pieces of RNA that
`
`interfere with the body’s ability to make certain proteins that may cause disease. Some of this
`
`research led to the development of an siRNA therapeutic called ONPATTRO®.
`
`8.
`
`By 2008 the company that is now Arbutus was no longer interested in supporting
`
`the work that Dr. Madden and Dr. Hope were pursuing, and terminated their employment.
`
`Together with Dr. Cullis, Drs. Madden and Hope founded Acuitas Therapeutics Inc. (originally
`
`called AlCana Technologies Inc.) to develop LNP technology, and, by 2012, Acuitas had decided
`
`to focus on the development of LNP technology for the delivery of mRNA. Conversely, Arbutus
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-02229-MKV Document 1 Filed 03/18/22 Page 4 of 42
`
`chose to focus its business on the much less challenging problem of developing LNP carriers to
`
`encapsulate siRNA.
`
`9.
`
`There were good scientific reasons for Arbutus to have bet on siRNA therapeutics
`
`rather than mRNA therapeutics. Despite the similarity in their names, siRNA and mRNA are
`
`fundamentally different in ways that may frustrate the design of LNPs to encapsulate mRNA. For
`
`starters, there is the size difference: mRNA molecules are much larger than siRNA molecules,
`
`with the mRNA in COMIRNATY® some 200 times longer than an average siRNA molecule. Then
`
`there is the rigidity difference: siRNA molecules are akin to short, sturdy rods, while the longer
`
`mRNA molecules can fold and wind into complex shapes. The technology needed to wrap an
`
`siRNA molecule in a lipid nanoparticle is thus vastly different (and simpler) than what is needed
`
`to wrap an mRNA molecule. Importantly, mRNA is also much less stable than siRNA,
`
`significantly complicating mRNA’s formulation and encapsulation in LNP and the manufacture
`
`of mRNA vaccines.
`
`10. While the hope for an mRNA therapeutic is over thirty years old, mRNA’s inherent
`
`instability and its inability to enter cells presented major barriers to its clinical use. In addition,
`
`previously known ways to package and deliver mRNA were either ineffective or toxic.
`
`11.
`
`Acuitas’s scientists solved those problems. They identified appropriate formulation
`
`conditions to allow efficient encapsulation of mRNA into LNPs and, importantly, to protect the
`
`mRNA from degradation during the formulation process. They tested hundreds of different LNPs
`
`with mRNA in order to determine the characteristics for successful encapsulation. And Acuitas’s
`
`scientists, in collaborations with its partners, evaluated different LNPs for use in a variety of
`
`different vaccines. This research has been published in leading scientific journals, including in
`
`Nature.
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-02229-MKV Document 1 Filed 03/18/22 Page 5 of 42
`
`12.
`
`Acuitas’s research has also focused on the design and synthesis of novel lipids that
`
`provide more efficient and safe delivery of mRNA. This research has resulted in the identification
`
`of hundreds of novel lipids with improved activity and safety. Acuitas has also patented its novel
`
`discoveries, which include the ionizable cationic lipid known as ALC-0315, which is used in the
`
`LNP in COMIRNATY®. Acuitas and its researchers have received global praise, recognition, and
`
`awards for their role in developing the LNP technology required for mRNA vaccines, including
`
`the critical LNP component of COMIRNATY®. These awards include the 2021 Global Impact
`
`Award by Life Sciences British Columbia, the Prince Mahidol Award, the VinFuture Grand Prize,
`
`the BIAL Award in Biomedicine, and the admission of Dr. Pieter Cullis to the Order of Canada.
`
`13. When Arbutus saw the tremendous success of the mRNA vaccines for COVID-19,
`
`it realized that having chosen to pursue siRNA therapeutics instead of mRNA was a bad decision,
`
`both scientifically and financially. Upon information and belief, Arbutus and Genevant sent a
`
`demand letter to Pfizer threatening to assert nine patents against the sale and use of the
`
`COMIRNATY® vaccine. That demand, and the prospect of future claims against other Acuitas
`
`licensees seeking to use Acuitas’s LNPs for other mRNA vaccines and therapeutics, threaten to
`
`cause serious harm to Acuitas’s business.
`
`14.
`
`Acuitas therefore brings this action pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 57
`
`and 28 U.S.C. § 2201 for a declaratory judgment that the following nine Arbutus patents are not
`
`infringed by the manufacture, use, offer for sale, sale, or importation into the United States of
`
`COMIRNATY® and are, in any event, invalid: U.S. Patent Nos. 8,058,069 (the “’069 patent”);
`
`8,492,359 (the “’359 patent”); 8,822,668 (the “’668 patent”); 9,006,417 (the “’417 patent”);
`
`9,364,435 (the “’435 patent”); 9,404,127 (the “’127 patent”); 9,504,651 (the “’651 patent”);
`
`5
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-02229-MKV Document 1 Filed 03/18/22 Page 6 of 42
`
`9,518,272 (the “’272 patent”); and 11,141,378 (the “’378 patent”) (collectively the “Arbutus
`
`Patents”).
`
`THE PARTIES
`
`15.
`
`Plaintiff Acuitas is a leading biotechnology company that collaborates with partner
`
`companies and academic institutions to develop new therapies to address unmet clinical needs. It
`
`is a Canadian corporation organized and existing in British Columbia, Canada, with a principal
`
`place of business at 6190 Agronomy Road, Suite 405, Vancouver, British Columbia, V6T 1Z3,
`
`Canada.
`
`16.
`
`Acuitas itself specializes in the development of mRNA-LNP formulations for use
`
`as therapeutics. Acuitas has partnered with non-parties BioNTech and Pfizer to supply and license
`
`the LNP used in COMIRNATY®, a COVID-19 vaccine being administered to protect people
`
`around the world. COMIRNATY® has received full approval for use by the United States Food
`
`and Drug Administration (“FDA”).
`
`17.
`
`On information and belief, Defendant Genevant Sciences GMBH, an indirect
`
`wholly owned subsidiary of Genevant Sciences Ltd. (itself a Bermuda holding company), is a
`
`limited liability company organized and existing under the laws of Switzerland with a principal
`
`place of business at Viaduktstrasse 8, 4051 Basel, Switzerland.
`
`18.
`
`On information and belief, Defendant Arbutus Biopharma Corp. (variously known
`
`in the past as Tekmira, Protiva, and Inex, and referred to herein as “Arbutus”) is a corporation
`
`organized and existing under the laws of Canada with corporate headquarters at 1066 W. Hastings
`
`Street Suite 1600, Vancouver, British Columbia, V6E 3X1, Canada and with research headquarters
`
`at 701 Veterans Circle, Warminster, Pennsylvania 18974.
`
`6
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-02229-MKV Document 1 Filed 03/18/22 Page 7 of 42
`
`19.
`
`On information and belief, non-party Roivant Sciences Ltd. owns approximately
`
`84% of Genevant Sciences Ltd., and Arbutus owns the remaining approximately 16% of Genevant
`
`Sciences Ltd. On information and belief, Roivant has offices at 151 W. 42nd Street, 15th Floor,
`
`New York, New York 10036. On information and belief, Roivant has acted as an agent for Arbutus
`
`and Genevant with respect to acts giving rise to this Complaint.
`
`20.
`
`Arbutus is the owner of all rights, title and interest to each of the Arbutus Patents.
`
`Upon information and belief, Genevant holds a license to each of the Arbutus Patents.
`
`JURISDICTION AND VENUE
`
`21.
`
`This Court has subject matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1338(a), and
`
`2201.
`
`22.
`
`This Court has personal jurisdiction over Genevant and Arbutus because each of
`
`them purposely availed itself of this jurisdiction by sending demand letters into this District
`
`alleging potential patent infringement. Specifically, on November 23, 2020 and October 12, 2021,
`
`Genevant and Arbutus sent letters to Pfizer’s headquarters on 42nd Street in Manhattan, within this
`
`District, pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 287(a), asserting that the making, use, sale, or offer for sale of
`
`COMIRNATY® may infringe each of the Arbutus Patents. On information and belief, Arbutus
`
`was aware of, and authorized and participated in, Genevant’s sending of those letters, as Arbutus
`
`is a significant shareholder in Genevant and is the assignee of the patents that Genevant threatened
`
`to assert, and Arbutus’s President and CEO signed both letters. By sending the letters, each of
`
`Genevant and Arbutus acted at least in part through their agent Roivant, which is itself
`
`headquartered in this District.
`
`23.
`
`On information and belief, Pfizer and BioNTech sell COMIRNATY® in this
`
`District.
`
`7
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-02229-MKV Document 1 Filed 03/18/22 Page 8 of 42
`
`24.
`
`Arbutus’s and Genevant’s accusations that the making, use, sale, or offer for sale
`
`of COMIRNATY® may infringe each of the Arbutus Patents has caused Acuitas harm in this
`
`District, at least because it has impaired or affected Acuitas’s ability to license its LNPs to
`
`companies headquartered or incorporated within this State and District, including Pfizer.
`
`25.
`
`Venue is proper in this district pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1391(b) and (c), and
`
`1400(b).
`
`Acuitas
`
`BACKGROUND
`
`26.
`
`The founders of Acuitas, Drs. Madden, Cullis, and Hope, have been working on
`
`lipids and LNP formulations for drug delivery for decades, including at Acuitas and when they
`
`were at Arbutus’s predecessor companies, Inex and Tekmira.
`
`27.
`
`Acuitas designs and synthesizes novel lipids, such as cationic lipids and pegylated
`
`lipids, formulates those lipids with mRNA into LNPs, optimizes such formulations using scalable
`
`components and processes, and performs analytical and biophysical characterization and
`
`preclinical characterization of the LNPs to ensure they have the most advantageous safety and
`
`efficacy profiles.
`
`28.
`
`Acuitas has synthesized hundreds of novel cationic lipids and has evaluated these
`
`novel compounds in mRNA-LNP formulations, including determining the potency and safety of
`
`the mRNA-LNPs for the delivery of therapeutic nucleic acid payloads. In collaboration with other
`
`scientists, Acuitas has elucidated the mechanism by which mRNA-LNPs are taken up by cells.
`
`Acuitas has also undertaken the biophysical characterization of such novel mRNA-LNPs and has
`
`conducted correlation analyses to determine which structural and biophysical properties of the
`
`components, including which structural and biophysical properties of the cationic lipids, are
`
`8
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-02229-MKV Document 1 Filed 03/18/22 Page 9 of 42
`
`critical for activity and safety. Acuitas has used this knowledge to guide subsequent lipid and
`
`mRNA-LNP development. This design and screening approach has allowed for the identification
`
`of mRNA-LNP formulations with greatly improved safety and efficacy profiles, including
`
`COMIRNATY®.
`
`29.
`
`Acuitas is researching and will continue to research and collaborate with partners
`
`to develop drugs utilizing Acuitas LNP technology to combat difficult-to-treat conditions and
`
`provide novel methods of treatment for disease. This work, and the potential benefit of the Acuitas
`
`mRNA-LNP technology, goes far beyond a vaccine against the virus that causes COVID-19,
`
`notwithstanding the enormous success of COMIRNATY®.
`
`COMIRNATY®
`
`30.
`
`The origins of COMIRNATY® lie in collaborations between Acuitas and
`
`BioNTech that preceded the COVID-19 pandemic. In 2017, Acuitas and BioNTech began to
`
`collaborate on the development of mRNA therapeutic products using the Acuitas LNP technology.
`
`At or around the same time, Acuitas had also been collaborating with another German company,
`
`CureVac N.V. (“CureVac”), which in 2019 began a Phase 1 clinical trial of an mRNA vaccine
`
`against rabies, using Acuitas’s LNP technology. In January 2020, CureVac released the results of
`
`this clinical trial, showing a strong immune response to the vaccine at a remarkably low dose.
`
`These very encouraging clinical data were released at the same time as the global threat from
`
`COVID-19 was becoming apparent. Acuitas therefore quickly engaged with CureVac and
`
`BioNTech to discuss use of the same LNP technology to develop an mRNA vaccine against
`
`COVID-19. The LNP used in the rabies vaccine contained the proprietary Acuitas lipids ALC-
`
`315 and ALC-159, and Acuitas recommended that the planned COVID-19 vaccine use the same
`
`LNP composition.
`
`9
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-02229-MKV Document 1 Filed 03/18/22 Page 10 of 42
`
`31.
`
`The development of COMIRNATY® itself began in January 2020, at the onset of
`
`the pandemic, when BioNTech started creating an mRNA molecule that codes for the “spike
`
`protein” of the COVID-19 SARS-CoV-2 coronavirus. BioNTech started working with Pfizer in
`
`March 2020 to develop and produce a COVID-19 vaccine. The rapid development of
`
`COMIRNATY® was possible in part because BioNTech had access to the Acuitas LNP
`
`technology, and had been collaborating with Acuitas on the use of that technology for several
`
`years. Further, Acuitas actively supported the formulation and evaluation of various COVID-19
`
`vaccine candidates and worked with BioNTech and Pfizer to support scale-up of the manufacturing
`
`process to allow subsequent production of the billions of vaccine doses needed globally.
`
`32.
`
`In May 2020, Pfizer and BioNTech initiated a Phase 1/2 clinical trial, which showed
`
`that healthy volunteers who took the vaccine could produce antibodies against the SARS-CoV-2
`
`coronavirus and could recruit immune-system T cells that respond to, target, and destroy the
`
`SARS-CoV-2 coronavirus.
`
`33.
`
`Phase 2/3 trials of COMIRNATY® began in July 2020, and were one of the two
`
`large studies of safety and efficacy of a COVID-19 vaccine in the United States. Pfizer and
`
`BioNTech’s Phase 2/3 trials tested whether COMIRNATY® was efficacious in preventing
`
`COVID-19 infections and/or reducing the severity of COVID-19 infections. The results of the
`
`COMIRNATY® Phase 2/3 clinical trials were extremely promising, showing an efficacy rate of
`
`95%.
`
`34. While Phase 2/3 clinical trials were ongoing, the federal government recognized
`
`the importance of the vaccine and announced a $1.95 billion contract to purchase 100 million doses
`
`of COMIRNATY® in July of 2020 and announced another $1.95 billion contract for another 100
`
`10
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-02229-MKV Document 1 Filed 03/18/22 Page 11 of 42
`
`million doses of COMIRNATY® by December 2020, bringing the government’s total purchase
`
`commitment to almost $4 billion.
`
`35.
`
`On November 18, 2020, BioNTech and Pfizer announced that their COVID-19
`
`vaccine met all the primary efficacy endpoints in their Phase 3 study, demonstrating an efficacy
`
`rate of 95% (p < 0.0001) in participants without prior SARS-CoV-2 infection (first primary
`
`objective) and also in participants with and without prior SARS-CoV-2 infection (second primary
`
`objective), as measured from 7 days after the second dose of the vaccine.
`
`36.
`
`On December 11, 2020, COMIRNATY® was approved by the FDA under an
`
`Emergency Use Authorization to prevent COVID-19 in individuals 16 years of age and older. That
`
`EUA approval came less than ten months after BioNTech first created an mRNA molecule coding
`
`for the spike protein of the SARS-CoV-2 virus.
`
`37.
`
`COMIRNATY® immediately started being deployed nationwide in vaccination
`
`efforts.
`
`38.
`
`By summer 2021, the federal government and the European Union had negotiated
`
`deals with Pfizer and BioNTech to purchase billions of doses of COMIRNATY®.
`
`39.
`
`On May 10, 2021, the FDA expanded the Emergency Use Authorization of
`
`COMIRNATY® to include children as young as 12. Later, on October 29, 2021, the Emergency
`
`Use Authorization was expanded to children as young as 5.
`
`40.
`
`As a result of the safety profile and efficacy of COMIRNATY®, including
`
`information obtained as a result of the successful vaccination efforts during 2020 and early 2021,
`
`and in conjunction with further scientific studies, the FDA gave full approval of COMIRNATY®
`
`on August 23, 2021. COMIRNATY® was the first COVID-19 vaccine to receive such approval.
`
`11
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-02229-MKV Document 1 Filed 03/18/22 Page 12 of 42
`
`41.
`
`Following full approval, COMIRNATY® was found to be efficacious in combating
`
`not just the original COVID-19 strains but also the Beta, Delta, and Omicron variants that swept
`
`the world following the initial 2020 outbreak.
`
`42.
`
`To date, Pfizer and BioNTech have delivered billions of doses of COMIRNATY®
`
`worldwide to combat the COVID-19 pandemic, all containing the lipids and lipid nanoparticles
`
`innovated by Acuitas that deliver this critical mRNA therapeutic.
`
`Arbutus and Genevant
`
`43.
`
`Arbutus’s origins also began with the founders of Acuitas. In 1992, Acuitas
`
`founders Dr. Cullis, Dr. Madden, and Dr. Hope founded Arbutus’s predecessor Inex (later
`
`rebranded as Tekmira). Dr. Cullis left Tekmira in 2005; Dr. Madden and Dr. Hope left Tekmira
`
`in 2008.
`
`44.
`
`Although Arbutus, including its predecessors Inex, Protiva, and Tekmira, has
`
`worked on LNP technology, COMIRNATY® does not utilize lipids or LNP formulations
`
`developed by Genevant, Arbutus, or their shareholder Roivant. Neither Arbutus nor Genevant has
`
`a COVID-19 vaccine product competing against COMIRNATY® on the market nor, on
`
`information and belief, has either ever attempted to develop or commercialize an mRNA-based
`
`COVID-19 vaccine product.
`
`45.
`
`Yet just days after BioNTech and Pfizer announced their positive Phase 3 COVID-
`
`19 vaccine results on November 18, 2020, on November 23, 2020, Genevant and Arbutus wrote a
`
`letter to Pfizer, stating: “We believe and notify you as contemplated by 35 U.S.C. § 287(a) that
`
`the manufacture, importation, offer for sale, sale, and/or use of your COVID-19 vaccine may
`
`infringe Arbutus patents, including at least U.S. Patent Nos. 8,058,069, 8,492,359, 8,822,668,
`
`9,006,417, 9,404,127, 9,364,435, 9,504,651, and 9,518,272.”
`
`12
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-02229-MKV Document 1 Filed 03/18/22 Page 13 of 42
`
`46.
`
`On October 12, 2021, Genevant and Arbutus wrote another letter to Pfizer, stating:
`
`“[W]e believe, and notify Pfizer and BioNTech under 35 U.S.C. § 287(a), that the manufacture,
`
`importation, offer for sale, sale, and/or use of the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine
`
`Comirnaty® may infringe Arbutus[’s] U.S. Patent No. 11,141,378, in addition to at least the
`
`Arbutus patents that were identified in our November 23, 2020 letter.”
`
`47.
`
`On information and belief, Genevant seeks hundreds of millions, if not billions, of
`
`dollars in unjustified royalties on sales of COMIRNATY®. That demand hinders the ability of
`
`Acuitas, as well as its partners such as BioNTech and Pfizer, to freely research, develop, and
`
`commercialize therapeutics utilizing Acuitas’s LNP technology, including COVID-19 vaccines.
`
`48.
`
`Arbutus’s and Genevant’s demands make it such that Acuitas and any company
`
`that works with Acuitas or utilizes Acuitas’s LNPs or LNP technology face the risk of suit for
`
`infringement of one or more claims of the Arbutus Patents. Acuitas’s business model is to develop
`
`LNP technology and license it to partners who will use the technology to develop mRNA-based
`
`vaccines and other therapeutic products. It is very important to Acuitas’s business that partners
`
`and prospective partners can use the licensed Acuitas LNP technology free and clear of any third-
`
`party patents. Arbutus’s and Genevant’s demands thus impact the relationship between Acuitas
`
`and its current partners, including BioNTech and Pfizer, as well as Acuitas’s ability to enter into
`
`new relationships with other potential partners.
`
`49.
`
`Accordingly, Acuitas seeks a declaratory judgment that COMIRNATY® does not
`
`infringe any claim of the Arbutus Patents, and/or that each of the Arbutus Patents is invalid. Such
`
`a declaration of the rights of the parties is appropriate and necessary for Acuitas to continue
`
`providing its critical lipids and LNP formulations for the production of COMIRNATY® and for
`
`13
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-02229-MKV Document 1 Filed 03/18/22 Page 14 of 42
`
`Acuitas to freely conduct its LNP research and partner with entities to develop additional
`
`therapeutics.
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,058,069
`
`THE PATENTS IN SUIT
`
`50.
`
`On information and belief, Arbutus is the owner of all rights, title, and interest in
`
`the ’069 patent, entitled “Lipid Formulations for Nucleic Acid Delivery.” The United States Patent
`
`and Trademark Office issued the ’069 patent on November 15, 2011. The ’069 patent names
`
`Edward Yaworski, Kieu Lam, Lloyd Jeffs, Lorne Palmer, and Ian MacLachlan as inventors. All
`
`the named inventors assigned the ’069 patent to Protiva, which subsequently amalgamated into
`
`Arbutus. A copy of the ’069 patent is attached to this Complaint as Exhibit A.
`
`51.
`
`The ’069 patent contains one independent claim, claim 1, which claims a “nucleic
`
`acid-lipid particle comprising” “a nucleic acid,” “a cationic lipid comprising from 50 mol % to 65
`
`mol % of the total lipid,” “a non-cationic lipid comprising a mixture of a phospholipid and
`
`cholesterol or a derivative thereof,” and “a conjugated lipid that inhibits aggregation of particles.”
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,492,359
`
`52.
`
`On information and belief, Arbutus is the owner of all rights, title, and interest in
`
`the ’359 patent, entitled “Lipid Formulations for Nucleic Acid Delivery.” The USPTO issued the
`
`’359 patent on July 23, 2013. The ’359 patent names Edward Yaworski, Kieu Lam, Lloyd Jeffs,
`
`Lorne Palmer, and Ian MacLachlan as inventors. All the named inventors assigned the ’359 patent
`
`to Protiva, which subsequently amalgamated into Arbutus. A copy of the ’359 patent is attached
`
`to this Complaint as Exhibit B.
`
`53.
`
`The ’359 patent contains one independent claim, claim 1, which claims a “nucleic
`
`acid-lipid particle comprising” “a nucleic acid,” “a cationic lipid comprising from 50 mol % to 65
`
`14
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-02229-MKV Document 1 Filed 03/18/22 Page 15 of 42
`
`mol % of the total lipid,” “a non-cationic lipid comprising a mixture of a phospholipid and
`
`cholesterol or a derivative thereof,” and “a conjugated lipid that inhibits aggregation of particles.”
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,822,668
`
`54.
`
`On information and belief, Arbutus is the owner of all rights, title, and interest in
`
`the ’668 patent, entitled “Lipid Formulations for Nucleic Acid Delivery.” The USPTO issued the
`
`’668 patent on September 2, 2014. The ’668 patent names Edward Yaworski, Kieu Lam, Lloyd
`
`Jeffs, Lorne Palmer, and Ian MacLachlan as inventors. All the named inventors assigned the ’668
`
`patent to Protiva, which subsequently amalgamated into Arbutus. A copy of the ’668 patent is
`
`attached to this Complaint as Exhibit C.
`
`55.
`
`The ’668 patent contains an independent claim, claim 1, that claims a “nucleic acid-
`
`lipid particle comprising” “a nucleic acid,” “a cationic lipid comprising from 50 mol % to 65 mol
`
`% of the total lipid,” “a non-cationic lipid . . . comprising a mixture of a phospholipid and
`
`cholesterol or a derivative thereof,” and “a conjugated lipid that inhibits aggregation of particles.”
`
`Further, the ’668 patent claims methods for “treating a disease or disorder” and “in vivo delivery
`
`of a nucleic acid” comprising the administration of the “nucleic acid-lipid particle” of claim 1.
`
`U.S. Patent No. 9,006,417
`
`56.
`
`On information and belief, Arbutus is the owner of all rights, title, and interest in
`
`the ’417 patent, entitled “Non-Liposomal Systems for Nucleic Acid Delivery.” The USPTO issued
`
`the ’417 patent on April 14, 2015. The ’417 patent names Edward Yaworski, Lloyd Jeffs, and
`
`Lorne Palmer as inventors. All the named inventors assigned the ’417 patent to Protiva, which
`
`subsequently amalgamated into Arbutus. A copy of the ’417 patent is attached to this Complaint
`
`as Exhibit D.
`
`15
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-02229-MKV Document 1 Filed 03/18/22 Page 16 of 42
`
`57.
`
`The ’417 patent contains an independent claim, claim 1, that claims a “composition
`
`comprising” “plurality of nucleic acid-lipid particles, wherein each particle . . . comprises” “a
`
`nucleic acid,” “a cationic lipid comprising from 50 mol % to 85 mol % of the total lipid,” “a non-
`
`cationic lipid,” and “a conjugated lipid that inhibits aggregation of particles” where “at least about
`
`95% of the particles . . . have a non-lamellar morphology.” Further, the ’417 patent claims methods
`
`of “introducing a therapeutic agent into a cell” and “in vivo delivery of a therapeutic agent”
`
`comprising the composition claimed in claim 1.
`
`U.S. Patent No. 9,364,435
`
`58.
`
`On information and belief, Arbutus is the owner of all rights, title, and interest in
`
`the ’435 patent, entitled “Lipid Formulations for Nucleic Acid Delivery.” The USPTO issued the
`
`’435 patent on June 14, 2016. The ’435 patent names Edward Yaworski, Kieu Lam, Lloyd Jeffs,
`
`Lorne Palmer, and Ian MacLachlan as inventors. All the named inventors assigned the ’435 patent
`
`to Protiva, which subsequently amalgamated into Arbutus. A copy of the ’435 patent is attached
`
`to this Complaint as Exhibit E.
`
`59.
`
`The ’435 patent contains an independent claim, claim 1, that claims a “nucleic acid-
`
`lipid particle comprising” “a nucleic acid,” “a cationic lipid comprising from 50 mol % to 85 mol
`
`% of the total lipid,” “a non-cationic lipid,” and “a conjugated lipid that inhibits aggregation of
`
`particles.” Further, the ’435 patent claims methods of “introducing a nucleic acid into a cell,” “in
`
`vivo delivery of a nucleic acid,” and “treating a disease or disorder” comprising the nucleic acid-
`
`lipid particle claimed in claim 1.
`
`U.S. Patent No. 9,404,127
`
`60.
`
`On information and belief, Arbutus is the owner of all rights, title, and interest in
`
`the ’127 patent, entitled “Non-Liposomal Systems for Nucleic Acid Delivery.” The USPTO issued
`
`16
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-02229-MKV Document 1 Filed 03/18/22 Page 17 of 42
`
`the ’127 patent on August 2, 2016. The ’127 patent names Edward Yaworski, Lloyd Jeffs, and
`
`Lorne Palmer as inventors. All the named inventors assigned the ’127 patent to Protiva, which
`
`subsequently amalgamated into Arbutus. A copy of the ’127 patent is attached to this Complaint
`
`as Exhibit F.
`
`61.
`
`The ’127 patent contains an independent claim, claim 1, that claims a “composition
`
`comprising” “a plurality of nucleic acid-lipid particles, wherein each particle . . . comprises” “a
`
`nucleic acid,” “a cationic lipid,” “a non-cationic lipid,” and “a conjugated lipid that inhibits
`
`aggregation of particles” where “at least about 95% of the particles . . . have a non-lamellar
`
`morphology.” Further, the ’127 patent claims methods of “introducing a therapeutic agent into a
`
`cell” and “in vivo delivery of a therapeutic agent” comprising the composition claimed in claim 1.
`
`U.S. Patent No. 9,504,651
`
`62.
`
`On information and belief, Arbutus is the owner of all rights, title, and interest in
`
`the ’651 patent, entitled “Lipid Compositions for Nucleic Acid Delivery.” The USPTO issued the
`
`’651 patent on November 29, 2016. The ’651 patent names Ian MacLachlan, Lloyd Jeffs, Lorne
`
`Palmer, and Cory Giesbrecht as inventors. All the named inventors assigned the ’651 patent to
`
`Protiva, which subsequently amalgamated into Arbutus. A copy of the ’651 patent is attached to
`
`this Complaint as Exhibit G.
`
`63.
`
`The ’651 patent contains one independent claim, claim 1, which