Pfizer is currently involved in several significant court cases, including state attorney general lawsuits in Texas and Kansas over COVID-19 vaccine marketing, a whistleblower appeal at the Fifth Circuit, a multi-jurisdiction mRNA patent fight with Moderna, and a €1.9 billion Belgian court ruling requiring Poland and Romania to pay for canceled vaccine orders. The company also closed a $59.7 million kickback settlement in early 2025. Below is where each matter stands.
Texas Attorney General v. Pfizer
Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton sued Pfizer in November 2023 under the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Act, challenging three specific vaccine claims: that Comirnaty was 95% effective against infection (which the state called misleading because it reflected relative risk reduction over a two-month trial), that protection was durable, and that vaccination would prevent transmission to others.1Texas Attorney General. Attorney General Ken Paxton Sues Pfizer for Misrepresenting COVID-19 Vaccine Efficacy and Conspiring The suit also accused Pfizer of conspiring with social media platforms to censor critics.2KXAN. Paxton Continues Lawsuit Against Pfizer Regarding Vaccine Efficiency
In December 2024, U.S. District Judge Sam Cummings dismissed the case, holding that the federal Public Readiness and Emergency Preparedness Act shields Pfizer from state suits over covered countermeasures, and that its immunity extends to marketing, promotion, and sale, not only administration.3KCBD. Lubbock Judge Dismisses Paxton’s Lawsuit Against Pfizer4U.S. Chamber of Commerce. Amicus Brief, Texas v. Pfizer Inc., Fifth Circuit Paxton filed a notice of appeal on January 8, 2025.5Texas Attorney General. Attorney General Ken Paxton Continues Lawsuit Against Pfizer The appeal is pending before the Fifth Circuit, and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce filed an amicus brief in June 2025 urging affirmance.
Kansas Attorney General v. Pfizer
Kansas Attorney General Kris Kobach filed a broader parallel action in June 2024 in Thomas County under the Kansas Consumer Protection Act. The complaint adds allegations the Texas case does not: that Pfizer marketed the vaccine as safe for pregnant women despite internal data on adverse events and miscarriages, denied risks of myocarditis and pericarditis, overstated variant efficacy when data showed rates below 50%, and claimed prevention of transmission without having studied it.6Kansas Reflector. Kansas AG Kobach Accuses Pfizer of Misleading Vaccine Marketing in Lawsuit Kansas seeks civil penalties, damages, and injunctive relief.
Pfizer removed the case to federal court, but on May 14, 2025, Judge Crabtree of the U.S. District Court for the District of Kansas remanded it to state court.7Kansas Attorney General. Pfizer COVID Vaccine Case Remanded to State Court Pfizer has said the remand is subject to appeal and that the claims lack merit, citing FDA confidence in the vaccine’s data.8KCTV5. Case Filed Against Pfizer COVID Vaccine Marketing to Be Heard at State Level No trial date is set.
Brook Jackson Whistleblower Appeal
Brook Jackson, a former regional director at Ventavia Research Group, a contract research organization that ran some of Pfizer’s phase III trial sites, filed a False Claims Act suit alleging clinical trial fraud. She had reported concerns to the FDA in September 2020 about falsified records, unaddressed adverse events, improper vaccine storage, and unblinding of trial personnel, and was fired the same day.9The BMJ. COVID-19: Researcher Blows the Whistle on Data Integrity Issues in Pfizer’s Vaccine Trial
In April 2023, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas dismissed the case with prejudice, finding that allegations of inadequate medical procedures did not meet the False Claims Act threshold; the federal government supported dismissal.10Bloomberg Law. Pfizer Defeats Whistleblower Suit Over COVID-19 Clinical Trial Jackson appealed. The Fifth Circuit heard oral argument on December 3, 2025, before Judges Elrod, Richman, and Willett, and has not yet ruled.11CourtListener. Jackson v. Ventavia Research Group Docket
Biohaven Kickback Settlement
On January 24, 2025, the Department of Justice announced that Pfizer would pay $59.7 million to resolve False Claims Act allegations tied to its subsidiary Biohaven Pharmaceutical Holding Company. The government alleged that from March 2020 through September 2022, Biohaven paid speaker honoraria and provided high-end meals to prescribers as inducements for the migraine drug Nurtec ODT, with speaker programs often used as a pretext with no legitimate educational content.12Department of Justice. Pfizer Agrees to Pay Nearly $60M to Resolve False Claims Allegations Relating to Improper Physician Payments
Pfizer acquired Biohaven in October 2022 and ended the speaker programs. The payment breaks down to roughly $50.2 million for federal programs and $9.5 million for state Medicaid programs. Whistleblower Patricia Frattasio received approximately $8.4 million. The settlement includes no admission of liability.13HHS Office of Inspector General. Pfizer Agrees to Pay Nearly $60M to Resolve False Claims Allegations
Moderna mRNA Patent Litigation
Moderna sued Pfizer and BioNTech in August 2022 in the District of Massachusetts, alleging that Comirnaty infringes three mRNA patents. The fight has produced different outcomes in different forums.
United Kingdom
After a 19-day trial in 2024, High Court Judge Richard Meade held that EP 3 590 949, covering modified mRNA with N1-methyl-pseudouridine, was valid and infringed. A second patent, EP 3 718 565, was invalidated.14JUVE Patent. Moderna Takes First Win in UK Trials With Pfizer and BioNTech In August 2025, the Court of Appeal unanimously upheld the EP949 ruling.15JUVE Patent. Moderna and Freshfields Win Against BioNTech and Pfizer at UK Court of Appeal On December 8, 2025, the UK Supreme Court refused permission to appeal, closing the liability phase in Moderna’s favor.16UK Supreme Court. Pfizer Limited and Others v ModernaTX Inc
Damages remain to be calculated. High Court Judge Jonathan Richards ruled that Pfizer and BioNTech had non-contractual consent to use the technology from October 2020 through March 2022, so damages will run from March 8, 2022 forward. Comirnaty has produced more than $75 billion in worldwide sales since 2021, though the UK figure will drive the award.
United States
Pfizer and BioNTech attacked two of Moderna’s three asserted U.S. patents through inter partes review. On March 5, 2025, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board ruled all challenged claims in the ‘600 and ‘127 patents unpatentable as obvious, relying in part on Moderna’s own earlier patent publications and FDA submissions.17Fierce Pharma. Pfizer, BioNTech Notch US Win Amid High-Stakes Patent Fight With Moderna Moderna is evaluating a Federal Circuit appeal. The unchallenged ‘574 patent remains in the Massachusetts case, which is stayed pending the patent office proceedings.
European Patent Office
The EPO revoked EP565 for obviousness in late 2023; Moderna’s appeal is set for hearing before the Boards of Appeal in January 2026. The Opposition Division upheld EP949, and Pfizer and BioNTech have appealed, with a hearing scheduled for September 2026.15JUVE Patent. Moderna and Freshfields Win Against BioNTech and Pfizer at UK Court of Appeal
Poland and Romania Ordered to Pay €1.9 Billion
On April 1, 2026, the Court of First Instance in Brussels ruled that Poland and Romania owe Pfizer roughly €1.9 billion (about $2.2 billion) for refusing delivery of vaccine doses they had committed to buy. Poland was ordered to pay approximately €1.3 billion and Romania about €600 million.18Fierce Pharma. Poland, Romania Must Pay Pfizer $2.2B for Missed COVID Vaccine Deliveries
The contract dated to a May 2021 European Commission agreement with Pfizer and BioNTech for 900 million doses in 2022 and 2023, plus a 200-million-dose option exercised that December. When demand dropped, several member states refused delivery. The court rejected arguments that falling infection rates or the financial pressure of the war in Ukraine justified cancellation, and it ordered the countries to accept the remaining doses. Poland’s Ministry of Health said it will use all available legal remedies and is analyzing the judgment before formally appealing.
EU Vaccine Contract Transparency Case
In a separate EU proceeding, the European Commission has fought to keep parts of its vaccine purchase agreements confidential. The EU General Court ruled in July 2024 that the Commission had not granted the public sufficient access. The Commission appealed to the Court of Justice. On June 11, 2026, Advocate General Athanasios Rantos issued an opinion recommending rejection of the appeals, reasoning that transparency in vaccine procurement serves a public interest, that anonymized conflict-of-interest declarations cannot verify negotiator impartiality, and that the Commission failed to show how disclosing indemnification clauses would harm commercial interests.19Court of Justice of the European Union. Press Release: Advocate General’s Opinion in Cases C-631/24 P and C-632/24 P The opinion is not binding; a final judgment will follow.
Historical Context
Pfizer’s active docket sits against a long enforcement history. In 2009, the company paid $2.3 billion in what was then the largest health care fraud settlement in U.S. history. Subsidiary Pharmacia & Upjohn pleaded guilty to a felony misbranding charge over the painkiller Bextra and paid $1.3 billion in criminal fines and forfeitures; a separate $1 billion civil settlement resolved allegations of off-label promotion of at least four drugs and illegal kickbacks tied to thirteen medications.20Washington State Attorney General. Pfizer Inc. to Pay $2.3 Billion in Historic Medicaid Fraud Settlement