USA Today's fact check can be accessed here. Today I will be fact checking the portion of the article that is located below. Let's begin.
First note that only one fact checker (from what I’ve seen) has contested the patent claim made in the documentary. This is very telling.
As the 'check' states, products of nature are not eligible for patent protection, and complimentary DNA is. Notice the last part that they added? It’s completely irrelevant, yet they still go on to elaborate upon it with:
“About 20 pages of the patent describe the process of isolating the genome, including the synthesis of cDNA.”
In this context specifically, there is only one part of the patent that matters. USA Today discloses it.
"Coronavirus isolated from humans," Patent #7,220,852 B1 — includes the "isolated coronavirus genome, isolated coronavirus proteins, and isolated nucleic acid molecules."
Up to scratch? The patent includes the isolated GENOME of the virus. A genome is the “genetic material of an organism”, consisting of DNA or RNA. To reiterate, the patent, accessible here, makes it very clear that the "invention relates to a newly isolated human coronavirus. More particularly, it relates to an isolated coronavirus genome…” (kind of ironic how they use the word 'invention').
In 2013, "Justice Thomas’s unanimous opinion in Myriad held that isolated DNA segments were nonpatentable products of nature because the patent claimed naturally occurring genetic information" (https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R45918.pdf, pg. 17).
To this point, the fact check has been effectively useless. Let’s see what else it mentions.
Experts also noted that other steps in the process — like stripping genetic material from its chromosome and creating copies, or the use of biotechnology in general — likely made the patent viable.
Which ‘experts’? I thought this was a fact check, not an appeal to authority. Anyway, let's see what these experts had to say.
Key quotes from article 1:
Regarding the general principles shared by countries with regard to patent law:
You can’t patent something that is naturally occurring, [Schwartz] says, but if an organism is modified in some way, it is patentable.
Yep, that makes sense. SARS-CoV could be a coronavirus that has been ‘modified’, or optimised, for both severity and transmissibility in humans.
In the case of a gene, modifying its information or removing it from its chromosome typically would be enough to warrant a patent, says Schwartz, because the snippet of chromosome would not appear in nature by itself.
Sure thing! The patent is for an entire virus though! Does this mean that the virus would not appear in nature by itself? Because that’s the only way it could be legal.
This is a key point in the case of the novel coronavirus.
Oh wait... THIS ARTICLE IS OLD. IT IS ABOUT MERS. Its subtitle? “Dutch group patented genome of Middle East coronavirus, which has killed more than 30 people”. MERS was the novel coronavirus at the time of publishing. Looks like it’s irrelevant to the fact-check at hand. Article dismissed.
Article 2 - published May 29, 2003
The ONLY relevant quote:
Today, naturally occurring life forms remain ineligible for patent protection… However, one could arguably patent any gene or life form that has been modified by biotechnology, including genetic engineering.
Right, so only one that's been modified can be patented. Like SARS-CoV?
Back to the fact check
To recap, the fact check hasn’t argued anything relating to the point put forward by Dr. David E. Martin yet.
But just because the SARS-CoV patent was legal does not mean the virus was man-made or manufactured, as the video alleges.
In a general sense, their own sources just corroborated that it would have to have been ‘man-made’. The only way the patent can be legal is if the genome was modified (e.g. “by biotechnology”). However, this sentence of the fact check is just a play on words. On the basis of semantics, the USA Today could argue that their statement is correct; said coronavirus was not ‘man-made', it was 'modified'. Equally, to modify does not mean to manufacture.
The author then mentions some seemingly obscure technology to befuddle the reader.
“The patent includes man-made technology used to sequence the virus' genome, not to manufacture the virus itself.”
Scroll to page 16 of the patent document. Here, we see an ‘Overview of Several Embodiments’. It then, again, states what the patent is for; “A newly isolated human coronavirus (SARS-CoV).” A patent embodiment is defined as the "description of the production, use, practice, or expression of an invention in the patent application."
As Dr. Martin correctly states within the documentary, the patent was filed "not only on the virus," but also "on its detection and a kit to measure it." This is what said ‘embodiments’ refer to, which constitute precisely the type of "man-made technology used to sequence the virus' genome" mentioned within the fact check.
For example (pg. 16):
“An additional embodiment includes a kit for detecting a SARS-CoV in a sample”.
No one ever made the claim that there was ‘man-made’ technology inside the patent to “manufacture the virus itself”. It is unclear why USA Today mentioned this.
Wrapping up
In effect, the fact check accomplished nothing.
Another fact check also acknowledges that the U.S. Supreme Court “ruled in 2013 that simply isolating a natural product is not enough to warrant a patent." Therefore, SARS-CoV MUST have been a 'modified' form of the coronavirus in order for it to be patented. This is why it is IDIOTIC to trust fact checkers.
As Dr. Martin states:
“Under 35 USC §101, nature is prohibited from being patented. Either SARS coronavirus was manufactured, therefore making a patent on it legal – or it was natural, therefore making a patent on it illegal. If it was manufactured, it was a violation of biological and chemical weapons, treaties and laws. If it was natural, filing a patent on it was illegal. In either outcome, both are illegal.”