In the following opinion of the U.S. Supreme Court cDNA is not a product of nature and may be used to issue patents on claims directed to or encompassing a "human" organism.
This opinion of the U.S. Supreme Court:
can render a human into a non-human......creation of a cDNA sequence from mRNA results in an exons-only molecule that is not naturally occurring. When you are vaccinated you may be rendered a non-human and become the property of the cDNA manufacturer. Does Bill Gates come to mind?
Canadians - you must rebel and imprison our Satanic politicians and public servants. I have told you over and over they want to eradicate humanity. A U.S. patent is granted world-wide protection. That would include Canada. We must STOP the vaccine madness. We must protect each other and especially our kids.
Thank you and wake up,
Joseph Pede
ASSOCIATION FOR MOLECULAR PATHOLOGY ET AL.
v. MYRIAD GENETICS, INC., ET AL.
CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT
No. 12–398. Argued April 15, 2013—Decided June 13, 2013
2 ASSOCIATION FOR MOLECULAR PATHOLOGY v. MYRIAD GENETICS, INC. Syllabus Held: A naturally occurring DNA segment is a product of nature and not patent eligible merely because it has been isolated, but cDNA is patent eligible because it is not naturally occurring. Pp. 10–18. www.supremecourt.gov |
Excerpts from the decision are shown below. One should see the implications for "humans" when they are injected with an mRNA created vaccines that creates new cDNA. You are no longer human.
Page 13-14 of 22
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.”
We have “long held that this provision contains an important implicit exception[:] Laws of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract ideas are not patentable.”
We must apply this well-established standard to determine whether Myriad’s patents claim any “new and useful . . . composition of matter,” §101, or instead claim naturally occurring phenomena.
Page 15 of 22
The Court held that the modified bacterium was patentable. It explained that the patent claim was “not to a hitherto unknown natural phenomenon, but to a nonnaturally occurring manufacture or composition of matter—a product of human ingenuity ‘having a distinctive name, character [and] use.’”
Page 18-19-20
While Myriad relies on Judge Moore’s view that Congress endorsed the PTO’s position in a single sentence in the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2004, see Brief for Respondents 31, n. 8; 689 F. 3d, at 1346, that Act does not even mention genes, much less isolated DNA. §634, 118 Stat. 101 (“None of the funds appropriated or otherwise made available under this Act may be used to issue patents on claims directed to or encompassing a human organism”).
cDNA does not present the same obstacles to patentability as naturally occurring, isolated DNA segments. As already explained, U.creation of a cDNA sequence from mRNA results in an exons-only molecule that is not naturally occurring.8 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.9
No comments:
Post a Comment