Promosome, LLC v. Moderna, Inc.
Infringement action filed 6 Jun 2023 in the United States District Court for the Southern District of California and closed 30 Oct 2023, with US8853179B2 asserted. Recorded basis of termination: dismissed without prejudice.
Case record
- Patent involved
- US8853179B2
- Application no.
- US13/203229
- Case no.
- 3:23-cv-01047
- Verdict cause
- Infringement action
- Court
- S.D. Cal.
- Court level
- District Court
- Case region
- California
- Chief judge
- None recorded
- Trial level
- First instance
- Filed – Closed
- 6 Jun 2023 – 30 Oct 2023
- Duration
- 146 days
- Basis of termination
- Dismissed without Prejudice
- Products & marks
- Spikevax®
- Validity challenges
- None recorded
Check this patent against your own product
Prior art, claim scope, infringement exposure and design-around routes. Every answer cites the records behind it.
Get an FTO claim chart- 01Ranked prior artEvery hit source-linked
- 02Claim-level comparisonAgainst your own product
- 03Legal statusAcross 174 jurisdictions
Reengineering mRNA primary structure for enhanced protein production
Described herein are rules to modify natural mRNAs or to engineer synthetic mRNAs to increase their translation efficiencies. These rules describe modifications to mRNA coding and 3′ UTR sequences intended to enhance protein synthesis by: 1) decreasing ribosomal diversion via AUG or non-canonical initiation codons in coding sequences, and/or 2) by evading miRNA-mediated down-regulation by eliminating one or more miRNA binding sites in coding sequences.
- Legal status
- Active
- Granted
- 7 Oct 2014
- Earliest priority
- 24 Feb 2009
- Est. expiry
- 28 May 2030
- Validity challenges
- None recorded
- Licences recorded
- None recorded
- Inventors
- MAURO, VINCENT P. · CHAPPELL, STEPHEN A. · ZHOU, WEI · EDELMAN, GERALD M.
- Classification
- C12N15/11C12P21/02
- Prosecution counsel
- COOLEY LLP
- Examiner
- WHITEMAN, BRIAN
Parties of record
Promosome, LLC
- Core tech
- Not recorded
- Counsel
- Amanda Bonn · Joseph Samuel Grinstein · Taylor Hoogendoorn
- Firm
- Susman Godfrey
Moderna, Inc.
- Core tech
- Not recorded
- Counsel
- Gregory Bombard · Joseph Thomas Ergastolo · Megan Alexandra Chacon · Scott Joseph Bornstein
- Firm
- Fish & Richardson PC, Greenberg Traurig LLP, Greenberg Traurig PA, Wright, L’Estrange & Ergastolo LLP
Counsel of record
| Attorney | For | Role |
|---|---|---|
| Amanda Bonn | Promosome, LLC | Plaintiff |
| Joseph Samuel Grinstein | Promosome, LLC | Plaintiff |
| Taylor Hoogendoorn | Promosome, LLC | Plaintiff |
| Gregory Bombard | Moderna, Inc. | Defendant |
| Joseph Thomas Ergastolo | Moderna, Inc. | Defendant |
| Megan Alexandra Chacon | Moderna, Inc. | Defendant |
| Scott Joseph Bornstein | Moderna, Inc. | Defendant |
Basis of termination
From the record · verbatim“Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(i), Plaintiff Promosome LLC hereby dismisses, without prejudice, this action against all Defendants in its entirety and provides notice of the same. For avoidance of doubt, Defendants Moderna, Inc., Moderna US, Inc., and ModernaTX, Inc. have not served an answer or motion for summary judgment in this action. Accordingly, Plaintiff hereby notices voluntary dismissal of this action in its entirety, without prejudice. See Fed. R. Civ. P. (a)(1)(B).”
Case 3:23-cv-01047 · S.D. Cal. · closed 30 October 2023
Related cases
Three questions this record usually leads to. Each one runs against the full litigation and patent corpus, and cites what it finds.
Frequently asked questions
What is case 3:23-cv-01047?
3:23-cv-01047 is a patent infringement action brought by Promosome, LLC against Moderna, Inc., filed on 6 Jun 2023 in the United States District Court for the Southern District of California. The case closed on 30 October 2023.
Which patent was asserted in 3:23-cv-01047?
US8853179B2 (“Reengineering mRNA primary structure for enhanced protein production”), assigned to THE SCRIPPS RESEARCH INSTITUTE, currently active. The record also lists Spikevax®.
How was case 3:23-cv-01047 terminated?
The recorded basis of termination is dismissed without prejudice. The termination text reads: “Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(i), Plaintiff Promosome LLC hereby dismisses, without prejudice, this action against all Defendants in its entirety and provides notice of the same. For avoidance of doubt, Defendants Moderna, Inc., Moderna US, Inc., and ModernaTX, Inc. have not served an answer or motion for summary judgment in this action. Accordingly, Plaintiff hereby notices voluntary dismissal of this action in its entirety, without prejudice. See Fed. R. Civ. P. (a)(1)(B).”
What does dismissal without prejudice mean?
A dismissal without prejudice ends this action but leaves the claims alive — the plaintiff may file them again later, subject to the limitation period.
How long did case 3:23-cv-01047 take?
146 calendar days, from filing on 6 Jun 2023 to closure on 30 October 2023.
Who were the attorneys and the judge in 3:23-cv-01047?
Amanda Bonn, Joseph Samuel Grinstein and Taylor Hoogendoorn are recorded as counsel for plaintiff Promosome. Gregory Bombard, Joseph Thomas Ergastolo, Megan Alexandra Chacon and Scott Joseph Bornstein appear for defendant Moderna.
Disclaimer. This page reproduces publicly available court docket data for case 3:23-cv-01047 and is provided for general information and reference only. It is not legal advice and must not be relied upon as such.
Docket data has limits. Records are drawn from a snapshot and may lag the live docket. Sealed filings, amended complaints, counterclaims and post-closure motions may not be reflected. Party names, attorney names and firm affiliations are reproduced as recorded and may contain omissions. Where a field is absent from the record, this page marks it as not recorded rather than inferring a value.
No characterisation of the parties or the outcome. This page reports what the record contains. Nothing here should be read as an assertion that any party infringed, that any patent is valid or invalid, that any settlement occurred, or that any party prevailed.
No FTO or validity opinion. Nothing on this page constitutes a freedom-to-operate, novelty, validity or infringement opinion. Any decision touching a live patent dispute should be verified independently and reviewed with qualified patent counsel.