Take the Vaccine and They Own You

 In an attempt to demonstrate the complexity involved in IP protections and licensing deals surrounding COVID-19 vaccine technology, we developed a preliminary patent network analysis. We identified patents that were relevant to various vaccine technology platforms and used US Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) filings to highlight pertinent licensing deals. A visualization of the landscape is shown in the above figure.

More…

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

A reader sent me a 2013 Supreme Court decision concerning the ability of a company to patent and own the cDNA exon coding for a specific protein.

Although the judges expressed different views concerning the patentability of isolated DNA, all three agreed that patent claims relating to cDNA met the patent eligibility requirements of §101. Id., at 1326, and n. 9 (recognizing that some patent claims are limited to cDNA and that such claims are patent eligible under §101); id., at 1337 (Moore, J., concurring in part); id., at 1356 (Bryson, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part) (“cDNA cannot be isolated from nature, but instead must be created in the laboratory . . . because the introns that are found in the native gene are removed from the cDNA segment”). We granted certiorari. 568 U. S. _ (2012).

Section 101 of the Patent Act provides:
“Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.”

Reading through the decision, it is apparent that the judges had a very limited understanding of transcription and translation. What the decision does do is make a legal precedent that mRNA can be considered to be cDNA since their “opinion” rests on the cDNA exon’s ability to make mRNA which then makes the BRAC1 and BRAC2 proteins.

The vaccines’ mRNA is translated into spike proteins according to the pharmaceutical companies claims. It has now been shown that the mRNA is being incorporated into nuclear DNA by Polymerase Theta. This is then transcribed using cDNA according to their decision into mRNA for the rest of the individual’s life.

According to the Supreme Court decision, this means the pharmaceutical company now has a patent on part of your body.

cDNA does not present the same obstacles to patentability as naturally occurring, isolated DNA segments. As already explained, creation of a cDNA sequence from mRNA results in an exons-only molecule that is not naturally occurring. Petitioners concede that cDNA differs from natural DNA in that “the non-coding regions have been removed.” Brief for Petitioners 49. They nevertheless argue that cDNA is not patent eligible because “[t]he nucleotide sequence of cDNA is dictated by nature, not by the lab technician.” Id., at 51. That may be so, but the lab technician unquestionably creates something new when cDNA is made. cDNA retains the naturally occurring exons of DNA, but it is distinct from the DNA from which it was derived. As a result, cDNA is not a “product of nature” and is patent eligible under §101, except insofar as very short series of DNA may have no intervening introns to remove when creating cDNA. In that situation, a short strand of cDNA may be indistinguishable from natural DNA.

Here is the final judgment:

Cite as: 569 U. S. __ (2013) 1
Opinion of SCALIA, J.
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
No. 12–398
ASSOCIATION FOR MOLECULAR PATHOLOGY,
ET AL., PETITIONERS v. MYRIAD
GENETICS, INC., ET AL.
ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF
APPEALS FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT

[June 13, 2013]
JUSTICE SCALIA, concurring in part and concurring in the judgment. I join the judgment of the Court, and all of its opinion except Part I–A and some portions of the rest of the opinion going into fine details of molecular biology. I am unable to affirm those details on my own knowledge or even my own belief. It suffices for me to affirm, having studied the opinions below and the expert briefs presented here, that the portion of DNA isolated from its natural state sought to be patented is identical to that portion of the DNA in its natural state; and that complementary DNA (cDNA) is a synthetic creation not normally present in nature.

Just like Dr. Fauci manipulated the pandemic and the gain of function research, the Supreme Court was manipulated with rudimentary knowledge of molecular biology to pave the way for companies to own part of your body. Of course, the life span of vaccinated people may make this a moot point.

David DeGerolamo