The question after Moderna's COVID success was whether the mRNA platform generalizes, and the patent record answers in grants like US11752206B2 - "Herpes simplex virus vaccine," issued September 12, 2023 to ModernaTX, Inc. - which applies the same architecture to a new pathogen.
The claim braids two limitations. The first is antigen selection: an mRNA encoding an HSV antigen (glycoprotein targets). The second is the delivery composition: the same lipid-nanoparticle formulation class (A61K 9/5123, A61K 9/5146) that carried the COVID vaccine. The CPC tags - A61K 39/245 (herpesvirus vaccine), A61K 39/39 (adjuvanted), C07K 14/005 (the viral antigen) - capture the antigen side; the LNP classes capture delivery.
Why are both limitations load-bearing? Because the platform value is exactly the combination - a reusable delivery composition into which a new antigen is plugged. The claim's scope depends on the specific antigen design and the specific formulation. Swap the antigen and you arguably have a different vaccine; the claim reaches the HSV-targeted construct in the recited LNP.
The platform-versus-product tension runs through this grant. Moderna's delivery composition is general; its value to a specific product comes from coupling it to a specific antigen for a specific disease. The patent protects that coupling, not the platform in the abstract - which is why each new indication generates its own antigen-plus-delivery claim rather than relying on one master patent.
For the landscape, vaccine grants like this one are how an mRNA platform converts optionality into protectable assets. Each pathogen target - HSV here, others elsewhere - becomes a distinct antigen-and-delivery claim. Freedom-to-operate for a competing mRNA vaccine means clearing both the antigen-specific claim and the underlying delivery estate, the same two-layer problem that defines the whole modality.