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
5 comments:
Thank you! I was planning to ask you for an updated analysis.
My pleasure -- and let us both keep our fingers crossed, that Tangerine doesn't do more violence to the markets for vaccines, more generally.
Namaste!
Agreed!
I agree mRNA is a great technology in the long term. Could Moderna be takeover candidate at this price level?
Interesting possibility.
In my M&A practice, I've seen an uptick in the last two or three months in EU or Japanese buyers, even paying premium prices. . . for established US based companies. They keep the US target as a subsidiary, and thus completely AVOID tariff shocks (should there be any). [Which is proof that Trump's tariffs are doing the opposite of making more "American" companies. Damn.]
It has all been most prominent in settings where a European buyer wants a US market position, and buys a well-established US firm, but keeps it intact -- so that it gets all the access to the US markets, and the earnings of a US company, without paying tariffs for trying to sell the very same or similar products into the US FROM the EU.
Could that spark unusual interest in Moderna?
We shall see. . . but I'd think a US to US transaction would be at a lower price point than any US to EU deal.
Strange times, indeed!
Namaste.
Hey you… Once at 10:15 AM, headed back to the great White North on Saturday morning… And in music city — federal hearings, toward the end of the next month… Any availability? Fondly, me.
Post a Comment