In another perfectly predictable late-pandemic development, Moderna sued Pfizer last week. The suit alleges that Pfizer infringed Moderna’ patents related to the covid vaccine.Specifically, Moderna claims Pfizer stole two things: First, its key innovation — the technique of replacing uridine with methylpseudouridine in order to ‘fool’ the immune system and stabilize the mRNA particles.
Some folks have suggested the technique overshoots the mark and makes the mRNA TOO stable, which is why it is loitering in the body so much longer than the developers expected. Here’s a good stack if you want to dig into the microbiology: Pseudouridine, mRNA Vaccines & Spike Protein Persistence.
Second, Moderna claims Pfizer stole the entire spike protein, which Moderna had raced to patent:
It’s a fascinating lawsuit, and if the case isn’t quickly settled and goes forward, we’re going to learn a lot of stuff that we couldn’t have found out about any other way.
My mouth was already hanging open in dazed wonderment by the seventh paragraph. The complaint was talking about how Moderna developed the pseudouridine technique for the MERS virus back in 2015, when they created their first mRNA vaccine, and then made this astounding claim:
I had to read it twice. Sure enough, it claims that the mRNA vaccine “prevents” covid infections. Moderna repeats the claim again later in paragraph 15, albeit qualified by limiting the efficacy to Wuhan strain:
I think Moderna’s lawyers must have been on a long trip to the Antarctic or something and are out of touch with recent events.
Later, the complaint mentions boosters, but tellingly, makes no claim at all about efficacy of SpikeVax as a booster. Even more fascinating, you can read the complaint forwards and backwards and you’ll find NO CLAIM of any protection — partial or otherwise — from “severe hospitalizations and death.” This complaint could have been written in the summer of 2020 before the vaccines came out.
Why wouldn’t Moderna just admit the stupid jabs don’t prevent infections? They could have adopted the silly replacement argument that it prevents “severe hospitalizations and death,” right? As a lawyer, the only explanation that comes to mind is that Moderna (1) never intended the shots to work that way, and/or (2) they know that the jabs DO NOT prevent serious hospitalization and death, and they don’t want to lie in a federal court filing, which is a criminal felony.
Either way, it’s a remarkable omission. You might be wondering why they even mentioned the jab’s effect at all. In a patent case, you have to show what the invention is FOR. In other words, what it is intended to do. It can be something silly, like traveling through time, but there has to be a PURPOSE for the invention.
Out of all the options, Moderna picked “preventing infection.” Think about that.
For legal beagles, here’s the complaint.
☕️ Coffee & Courage ☙ Monday, August 29, 2022 ☙ PUNKEYMOX 🦠
Moderna sues Pfizer over its spike patent; who made Fauci?; vaccines fall from the sky; Trump's lawyers get a win; Ukraine still bombing nuke plant; Beto gets a mystery infection; and much more...
www.coffeeandcovid.com