It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Ebola Patent, 2012 publication date

page: 1
3

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 12 2014 @ 09:32 PM
link   
I noticed in doing research on Ebola that there was some information out there about a US Patent on an Ebola virus. I then checked the Ebola: Facts, Opinions, and Speculations thread to see if anyone brought up the patent aspect of Ebola.

Fylgje providing the first question in the thread relating to the patent of Ebola. It is not an issued patent, it's been published but is still pending.

I felt that this was an interesting aspect that should be explored separately from what seems to be taking place in the "Facts, Opinions, Speculations" thread and I will expand on why. Keep in mind that a patent is predominantly used to create a monopoly of an idea/invention to make money (marketing/selling) or through litigation (infringing/stealing) of the idea/invention.

The pending patent in question is as follows: please follow notes in (parentheses)
Human Ebola Virus Species and Compositions and Methods Thereof
US 20120251502 A1
Priority Date: October 2008 (they filed their provisional)
Filing Date: October 2009 (they filed the actual patent application)
Publication Date: October 2012 (the USPTO makes it public)
Google Patents link: www.google.com...

In the above link the patent is actually claiming a patent over the virus itself. This is important for one major thing - it is against patent law/regulations/policies of the USPTO to patent something that occurs in nature - naturally occurring or natural phenomena (read the USPTO MPEP 2106, Patent Subject Matter Eligibility).

Please think about that - against the patent regulations to patent something that is naturally occurring.

The first claim of the above patent states:
An isolated hEbola virus comprising a nucleic acid molecule comprising a nucleotide sequence of:
a) a nucleotide sequence set forth in SEQ ID NOS: 1 or 10;
b) a nucleotide sequence hybridizing under stringent conditions to SEQ ID NOS: 1 or 10; or
c) a nucleotide sequence of at least 70%-99% identity to the SEQ ID NOS: 1 or 10, with the proviso that said nucleotide sequence is not SEQ ID NO: 20.

A patent claim ensures the patent can't be infringed upon (used by someone else). If you read the Google patent link you will find they had 30 Claims, and canceled many of them.

>>> Doing a patent search tonight this pending patent has caused the USPTO has rejected many of their claims due to the USPTO subject matter regulations (naturally occurring). The "inventors" just responded (Aug 2014) to a USPTO office action regarding these problems and have canceled ALL Claims but Claim #4 - The hEbola virus of claim 1 which is an attenuated hEbola virus.

As a comparison, Monsanto is able to get genetic patents on the plants they create because they create them in a laboratory and they are not naturally occurring biological specimen.

This is where I find a big concern and moment of pause as to why they have TRIED to patent something that is "naturally occurring," unless it isn't naturally occurring but they can't admit to it? If they provided in their patent application that Ebola/hEbola is not naturally occurring it would be made public and that would cause a s#!t storm. The sheer fact they attempted to patent the virus seems very odd.

I can't imagine the CDC not knowing it's against USPTO regulations to patent natural phenomena. But I can imagine them attempting to patent something they know isn't a natural phenomena but can't publish that it isn't.

Again, I'm merely throwing theoretical darts here. But allow me to expand the logic - realize that patent fees are pretty steep and these "inventors" at the CDC are pretty much wasting a lot of time and money going through this process if this Ebola strain (EboBun) is naturally occurring and the CDC and their outside council should know that.

Also, keep in mind that "claims" are an attempt to keep someone (a company) from infringing and allows the patent holder to make money. Who would infringe on EboBun and how would the CDC seek to make money?

To me, these are important things to consider.

Notes for readers:
I am not a patent attorney, but I do work in the patent field and have done so for 10 years now. If anyone that is a patent attorney, specifically with a biology/sciences background is an ATS member please jump in and offer more information.

edit on 12-10-2014 by WCmutant because: (no reason given)

edit on 12-10-2014 by WCmutant because: (no reason given)

edit on 12-10-2014 by WCmutant because: (no reason given)




posted on Oct, 12 2014 @ 09:36 PM
link   
Monsanto alters natural organisms and then patents them.
The patent application for the altered virus is along the same vein.
Don't know why you'd create an altered ebola virus unless it is to be used for something.
edit on 12-10-2014 by badgerprints because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 12 2014 @ 09:39 PM
link   

originally posted by: badgerprints
Monsanto alters natural organisms and then patents them.
The patent application for the altered virus is along the same vein.
Don't know why you'd use an altered ebola virus unless it is to be used for something.


The alteration has to be created in a laboratory vs. naturally mutated (altered). All but one of the hEbola (EboBun) patent claims have been rejected by the USPTO, many on the grounds of "natural phenomena."

The plants that Monsanto has created aren't "natural phenomena."



posted on Oct, 12 2014 @ 09:42 PM
link   
When it comes to patents of viruses, we have to remember that vaccines are made from viruses and each vaccine maker will work from their own proprietary, patented version of said virus. Each pharmaceutical produces it's own virus from which it derives its vaccine, and to prevent other pharmaceuticals from stealing their formulas they patent them. Yeah, it's a sick world we live in.



posted on Oct, 12 2014 @ 09:43 PM
link   
a reply to: WCmutant


Who would infringe on EboBun and how would the CDC seek to make money?

If it mutates is that still covered or will they be trying to keep up by seeking new patents?

Probably. Until it kills everyone lawyers (Washington is all lawyers these days) will be trying to figure out how to make money from it instead of trying to find the actual cure.

Yaah, bureaucracy !

I don't think the CDC is trying to make money off it, I could be wrong. They are actually very busy right now really fighting it. Disregard any "constrained public announcements about not spreading". They are required to say that.



posted on Oct, 12 2014 @ 09:53 PM
link   

originally posted by: WCmutant

originally posted by: badgerprints
Monsanto alters natural organisms and then patents them.
The patent application for the altered virus is along the same vein.
Don't know why you'd use an altered ebola virus unless it is to be used for something.


The alteration has to be created in a laboratory vs. naturally mutated (altered). All but one of the hEbola (EboBun) patent claims have been rejected by the USPTO, many on the grounds of "natural phenomena."

The plants that Monsanto has created aren't "natural phenomena."


Monsanto didn't start out with gene sequencing and dna splicing.
The first roundup resistant plants were weeds from a vacant lot that had been the dumping ground for roundup and other herbicides.
A lot of the patents Monsanto holds are natural plants that have been altered.
A lot of "science" is just claiming the unexpected result of a failed experiment.

But that's beside the point.
I want to know how the USPTO knows an altered ebola virus versus a mutated virus?

For an obscure virus that was never studied because it was never going to reach the western hemisphere, it's had a hell of a lot of lab time with big money.

edit on 12-10-2014 by badgerprints because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 12 2014 @ 11:17 PM
link   
this is most definitely startling behavior of the CDC. Recommend we fly this out to everyone you know make it go viral so that it has to end up on the news and there will be public inquires.



posted on Oct, 14 2014 @ 09:25 AM
link   
a reply to: intrptr

The purpose of seeking a patent is to create a monopoly on the idea/invention. There is no reason to do this unless one is attempting to:
1. make money
2. control it's use (re: oil and auto companies buying up alternative fuel engine patents)

And badgerprints - I agree with you regarding the "claiming the unexpected result of a failed experiment."


originally posted by: badgerprints
But that's beside the point.
I want to know how the USPTO knows an altered ebola virus versus a mutated virus?

For an obscure virus that was never studied because it was never going to reach the western hemisphere, it's had a hell of a lot of lab time with big money.


Let's leave Monsanto out of this equation. I was using them solely as an example of a company that does get issued patents on arguably natural phenomena that have been modified through unnatural means.

Badgerprints, your question is the $1 million question. How would the USPTO know? They wouldn't unless the inventors of said patent claimed work in creating the virus. This is where the gray area lies and the point I was trying to make.

The CDC should know that you can't patent natural phenomena. Therefore, the fact they are seeking a patent on a virus seems dubious at best for the simple reasons I stated previously - it's time consuming, costly, and they would be wasting both time and money pursuing something they KNEW was a natural phenomenon and therefore not patentable... unless it isn't.

Of course, if it isn't they can't publish that in a patent application otherwise the world would easily find out EboBun wasn't natural and therefore created.

edit on 14-10-2014 by WCmutant because: (no reason given)

edit on 14-10-2014 by WCmutant because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
3

log in

join