Press "Enter" to skip to content

It’s All About the Lipid Nanoparticle Envelope: Wilson Sonsini and the Moderna Case Against Pfizer and BioNTech

27 Aug 22

Back on the 20th of this month in private dialogue with a prominent and well informed attorney, the matter of the Moderna case against Pfizer and BioNTech surfaced for reasons related to the law firm of Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati. At question was whether the firm had any representation relative to patents pertaining to COVID-19 mRNA “vaccinations”.

The answer is a resolute, yes.

Not only did the firm have representation relative to patents on the mRNA “vaccines”, but it ties directly to two of the most critical patents for the entire “vaccine” vector of the COVID-19 enterprise fraud construct.

For clarity, we’ll begin with a 2021 Moderna case tied to Arbutus and then connect it to a second more recent Moderna case against Pfizer and BioNTech. We begin with Wilson Sonsini.

Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati

Of concern is the nature of Wilson Sonsini as a firm that rivals Kirkland & Ellis, King & Spaulding and Perkins Coie as one of the most monstrous and swampy law firms around. I’ve heard Wilson Sonsini described as a powerhouse of 1000 attorneys representing the biggest and worst corporations on the planet. Moreover, the firm is enmeshed in insider trading crimes. If that isn’t enough, one of its partners is reportedly known as “The Godfather of Silicon Valley”.

I’ve even seen evidence linking the firm to other important matters but those exclusively sourced angles are for a future article; once I’m permitted to write it.

Another peculiarity found in the matter is the firm name Rosati respective to DEA Agent Joseph Rosati, who factors into the controversial whistleblower testimony of Dr. Johnathan McGreevey also known as John Here to Help. Lin Wood took McGreevey’s statement. I then used the statement, which I can not entirely validate and only present for consideration, to translate it into a series of visual schematics to examine all of the nexuses and associations [this one features Rosati].

In particular, Rosati ties to Garrett Ziegler and the work at Marco Polo. More specifically, I received and later sat in Ziegler’s office listening to the voicemails from incoming calls to a Ziegler phone. Those voicemails were evidenced to come from Joseph Rosati and in them, explicit threats were made to send Ziegler to prison for his ongoing work.

These are serious people.

Rosati factors into Ziegler’s publicly available base of work with regularity just as he factors into the broader private Marco Polo dialogue to which I’m privy.

Ziegler has yet to respond to direct inquiry about the overlaying Rosati name and so it remains a question.

Digressing we return to the Moderna suit.

Moderna, Arbutus & Lipid Nanoparticle Envelopes

Moderna’s suit against Pfizer and BioNTech draws Wilson Sonsini into the picture via a Canadian pharmaceutical company called Arbutus. Arbutus is critical to the COVID-19 construct for reasons covered in detail while examining and reporting on Dr. David E. Martin’s corpus of work into the existing 40,000 U.S. patent filings pertaining to the bioengineered SARS-CoV-2 virus. From the 24 Jul 21 Moonshine article:

Also in March of 2019, a series of rejected patent filings were amended and described as a very bizarre behavior. The amended filings were such that a “deliberate release” of coronavirus be included in the filing.

There were 4 failed patent applications amended to begin the process of a coronavirus vaccine development program and they began dealing with a significant problem of relying upon technology they did not own.

Two Canadian companies – Arbutus Pharmaceuticals and Acuitas Pharmaceuticals actually own the patent on the lipid nanoparticle envelope that’s required to deliver the injection of the mRNA fragment.

The respective patents have been issued in Canada, in the U.S. and around the world and in their world intellectual property equivalents.

Again, Moonshine’s initial investigative vectors on vaccine patent and patent-sharing agreements bear down with full might here.

Moderna knew it didn’t own the rights and entered negotiations with Abbutus and Acuitas to resolve the patent issues and permit the technology to be put into a vaccine.

Political Moonshine

In this 01 Dec 21 brief from Wilson Sonsini, we ascertain the important details and of particular interest to our focus here is of course the name Arbutus. The brief also provides an excellent and succinct description for the inherent value found in the patents for the lipid nanoparticle envelope. It amounts to proper the motive and the absolute necessity behind attaining the patents:

On December 1, 2021, the Federal Circuit affirmed the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s (PTAB’s) earlier rulings that ModernaTX, Inc. (formerly Moderna Therapeutics Inc.) failed to invalidate claims in two Arbutus Biopharma Corp. patents, known as the ‘069 and ’435 patents, and left the ‘069 patent fully intact. The trading price of Arbutus shares jumped as much as 95 percent after the court posted its opinions on its electronic docket. Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati represented Arbutus in the matter.

Arbutus’s U.S. Patent Nos. 8,058,069 and 9,364,435 relate to a composition based on lipid nanoparticle (LNP) technology that delivers nucleic acid payloads to allow the human body to make its own therapeutic proteins.

According to a recent Reuters article, “Moderna previously said in court filings that it believes Arbutus could bring a lawsuit demanding royalties from its COVID-19 vaccine if the patents were upheld.” Reuters reported that Moderna “last month forecast 2021 sales of between $15 billion and $18 billion, and 2022 sales of between $17 billion and $22 billion, for its COVID-19 vaccine.”

The Wilson Sonsini team that represented Arbutus Biopharma in the matter includes Michael Rosato, Sonja Gerrard, Steve Parmelee, Lora Green, and Jad Mills.

For more information, please see these Reuters and Bloomberg articles covering the decisions.

Wilson Sonsini

In short, if the vaccine manufacturers did not secure the rights to the lipid nanoparticle envelope, there would be no mRNA “vaccines” at all ergo there could be no “pandemic” at all. The kids [payload] don’t get to school if there’s no school bus [lipid nanoparticle envelope] to deliver them.

When I was asked to generalize the case, I stated this quoting a source in private dialogue:

It’s over royalties pertaining to the lipid nanoparticle envelope used to deliver the genetic material in the mRNA injections. Arbutus holds two patents that tie to Moderna’s mRNA injection ergo they seek royalties accordingly. “Moderna previously said in court filings that it believes Arbutus could bring a lawsuit demanding royalties from its COVID-19 vaccine if the patents were upheld.” Reuters reported that Moderna “last month forecast 2021 sales of between $15 billion and $18 billion, and 2022 sales of between $17 billion and $22 billion, for its COVID-19 vaccine.”

Political Moonshine

I wrote the first Moonshine COVID-19 article on 09 Feb 20, once I had accumulated enough evidence; with actual work drawing back to the very beginning of January, 2020. That article focused on medical and pharmaceutical patents and patent sharing agreements and it is the genesis of the direction for all of the work leading to the present.

Reuters reported in 2021,

Moderna is also embroiled in a months-long patent conflict over its COVID-19 vaccine with the U.S. National Institutes of Health (NIH). read more

NIH has asserted that three of its scientists helped design the genetic sequence used in Moderna’s multibillion-dollar vaccine and should be named on the patent application, a claim the company disagrees with.

The company maintains that the mRNA sequence in the company’s vaccine was selected exclusively by Moderna’s scientists, and without input of NIH scientists.


As Bloomberg reported in 2021, Moderna’s motive to rabidly defend its future and success is clear:

Moderna’s future is tied to the Covid vaccine. The company reported $60.2 million in revenue in 2019, a figure that jumped to $803.4 million last year, boosted by federal grants. The Cambridge, Massachusetts-based company has projected about $20 billion in sales this year, almost all of it from the Covid vaccine.

A Moderna spokeswoman said the court’s patent ruling is unrelated to the company’s dispute with the U.S. National Institutes of Health over whether government scientists should have been included as co-inventors of Moderna’s Covid-19 vaccine in a key patent application.

A representative of Arbutus didn’t respond to a request for comment.

Warminster, Pennsylvania-based Arbutus was “heavily favored” to win the appeals, which could lead to an infringement suit against Moderna, Jefferies analysts Kelechi Chikere and Michael Yee had said in a note to clients.

Moderna appealed, challenging the board’s findings that it didn’t show parts of the patents were obvious and anticipated.

The cases are Arbutus Biopharma Corp. v. Moderna Therapeutics Inc., 20-1186; and Moderna TX Inc. v. Arbutus Biopharma Corp., 20-2329, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.

Lipid Nanoparticles

The patents cover lipid nanoparticles — tiny balls of fat that protect genetic material as it travels through the body to enter specific cells to deliver drugs. Messenger RNA, the genetic material at the heart of the Covid vaccines, needs the lipid nanoparticles as a protective shell.

Royalties from nerve-function drug Onpattro — the first Food and Drug Administration-approved medicine that used Arbutus’s technology — form the only source of revenue for Arbutus, which reported just $6.9 million in licensing fees last year.

Investors have been speculating that the Arbutus patents, directed to a more stable lipid nanoparticle, will entitle the company to royalties from the mRNA-based vaccines by Moderna and Pfizer Inc. Moderna has a license to the Arbutus patents, but it’s limited to the areas of a respiratory virus known as RSV, Influenza A, and the mosquito-transmitted viruses Chikungunya and Zika.

Moderna preemptively challenged three Arbutus patents on the technology at the PTAB, with mixed results. The board invalidated one patent not at issue in the Federal Circuit’s latest two rulings, upheld all of another, and upheld some claims of a third.


It’s all about the lipid nanoparticle envelope.

Moderna, Pfizer & BioNTech

The most recent Moderna case against Pfizer and BioNTech is introduced by the NY Post:

Moderna is suing Pfizer and its German partner BioNTech for patent infringement in the development of the first COVID-19 vaccine approved in the United States, alleging they copied technology that Moderna developed years before the pandemic.

Pfizer shares fell 2.3% while BioNTech slumped 4%.

The lawsuit, which seeks undetermined monetary damages, was being filed in US District Court in Massachusetts and the Regional Court of Dusseldorf in Germany, Moderna said in a news release on Friday.

NY Post
NY Post

Reporting from Zero Hedge brings the two cases full circle as overlaid with Martin’s work. Martin first identified the patent conflicts that NIH and the vaccine manufactures encountered relative to Arbutus and those patents tied to the lipid nanoparticle envelopes, which are required to deliver the genetic payload. That payload reprograms human DNA through the reverse transcription process in places like the liver. The changes cause the human body to begin producing the deadly S1 spike protein on its own:

In their lawsuit, Moderna says Pfizer and BioNTech had other options but “decided to proceed with a vaccine that has the same exact mRNA chemical modification to its vaccine” as their treatment. It also accused the pair of copying its method of encoding a full-length spike protein in a lipid nanoparticle.

Zero Hedge

It’s all about the lipid nanoparticle envelope.

Final Thoughts

Beware of Wilson Sonsini. More to come.

Beyond the obvious thought that Big Pharma is infighting to profit off genocide, here’s what’s really important about all of this and it presents in simplistic form: 1-with no patents for the lipid nanoparticle envelope, there is no “pandemic”, 2-because the first phase of the “pandemic” manifested out of fraudulent data produced by enterprise fraud prosecutable under RICO statute, 3-and that is not a sustainable method as the evidence now shows, 4-and so the second phase of the “pandemic” is built to rely mostly on data aggregated out of the evidenced statistical increase in illnesses and disease that has occurred since the roll-out of the mRNA injections, 5-meaning that SARS-CoV-2 was nothing more than the designed impetus to force mRNA injections on the people and not the ultimate objective, 6-because the true pandemic is evidenced to be one of the vaccinated, 7-with the vaccinated now producing the illness and disease by means of their acquired S1 spike protein production, 8-and this creates the perpetual component to the fraud construct, 9-and all by design with the Martin corpus of work into U.S. patents evidencing that, 10-the SARS-CoV-2 virus, the tests to diagnose it and the “vaccines” to remedy it are all owned by essentially the same people.

If you were looking to establish a closed circle fraud construct to execute a fraudulent pandemic, having ownership of the SARS-CoV-2 virus, the tests to diagnose it and the “vaccines” to remedy it would be required. A complicit, corrupt, witting and treasonous MSM seals the deal for them.

As Moonshine has been hollering loudly, for a long time and alone, it’s all enterprise fraud, y’all. The construct was designed to exist in perpetuity and that delivers the technocratic global plantation being facilitated by medical tyranny as enforced by Bolshevism and the CCP’s brand of Marxist communism.

The longer folks just sit around, the more likely this becomes our forever.



Leave a ReplyCancel reply