Patent number US11107588B2 is a peculiar bit of intellectual property for a variety of reasons. Contrary to the social media chatter, this patent doesn’t discuss connecting humans with 5G technology, nor does it involve activating a graphene oxide signal in the bodies of the vaccinated. That is patently false.
It does, however, discuss how one might theoretically contact trace on a societal level. This proposed technology is intimately tied to the internet of things and artificial intelligence. In theory, someone might have their vaccination status on a phone application (or worse yet a vaccine passport) and as the unique identifier connects with other objects and people geolocated on the internet of things, it logs one’s “contact” with other humans who may have been subjected to the “unclean.”
The technology would make it infinitely easier to identify individuals of transmission concern and ensure they are tagged for future quarantine.
I don’t know about you, but that sounds like a totalitarian’s dream. No need for messy testing, or self-reporting, as long as you failed to read the fine print on the phone application’s user agreement or even the fine print on any internet-capable device you purchase… Voila, you are subject to the arbitrary whims of authoritarian technocrats intent on stealing your privacy and rights.
Fact checking the fact checkers.
When this patent first hit social media, there were quite a few breathless posts claiming 5G activation of hidden graphene oxide self-assembling particles surreptitiously hidden in Moderna and Pfizer’s vaccine products. Given the fact that Pfizer was willing to purposely obfuscate the inclusion of the SV40 promoter in material submitted to FDA regulators, as well as the repeated fibs being produced by the pharmaceutical industry and public health officials, all stories are plausible until proven otherwise.
I haven’t yet found concrete, provable evidence linking these shots with self assembling graphene oxide particles. There have been a number of reports that need independent verification before we should treat them as anything more than a theory. In that respect, Reuter’s fact check on US11107588B2 is accurate.
There was, however, one sole oddity in Reuter’s defense of truth. The patent was owned by two patent lawyers, Gal Ehrlich and Maier Fenster. Ehrlich and Fenster are with the Israeli firm Ehrlich group.
The Ehrlich Group is one of the most prominent Intellectual Property Groups both in Israel and internationally. Founded by Dr. Gal Ehrlich, today the Group comprises three pillars: Ehrlich & Fenster (“E&F”), a Patent & Trademark Attorneys firm; Ehrlich, Neubauer & Melzer (“EN&M”) our boutique IP litigation firm; and IPTrade, an IP monetization platform.
I called a well-known US-based patent lawyer to gather a little background on patent law and protections for intellectual property rights. It isn’t impossible, but it is unusual for patent lawyers to hold patents solely or co-registered with an inventor. It raises the possibility of legal and ethical concerns.
Sometimes a patent attorney may assist an inventor identify potential adjustments to their original idea, especially when the barrister has a specialty in specific scientific fields. Legally they can be listed as a co-inventor. It is not a common practice and even when the lawyer has been hired to draft the patent, if they choose to flout convention, the lawyers IP rights are most often legally assigned to the inventor.
Why?
There is a cultural aspect to the practice. It just isn’t regularly done, but there are legal reasons as well. Privilege questions are very difficult to tease out in a courtroom. Which communications between lawyer and client are privileged and therefore not admissible in court, and which conversations are subject to public scrutiny? No patent lawyer wants to have their disputes with clients a matter of public scrutiny, and similarly in the case of sole ownership, they don’t want to have to tease out which communications internal to their law practice are protected if their IP rights are challenged in court.
No one wants their dirty laundry aired, and listing oneself on another inventor’s patent makes it that much easier to see the ring around the white collar crime.
There are only two inventors listed…
The conventions of patent law notwithstanding, as it turns out there are only two patent lawyers listed, Gal Ehrlich and Maier Fenster. It would appear the IP is wholly owned by Ehrlich and Fenster. Gal is the founder and managing director of Ehrlich Group and Maier is head of the Medical Devices Department.
Crunchbase and GovTribe had very little information on Erhlich Group, which makes sense. It is an Israeli law firm, it isn’t a federal government contracting company, nor are they involved in a line of work that would be tracked by either corporate research tool. Given the international footprint, searching the PACER system for lawsuits executed by Ehrlich group might not yield results.
*** Welcome reader assistance identifying any alternative means one could employ to gather information on the range of Ehrlich Group’s clientele and litigation. Please leave your suggestions in the comments.
Gal Ehrlich
Gal is quite an accomplished man. In early 2020, the Ehrlich Group, under Gal’s leadership, moved quickly to file approximately 30 patent applications for coronavirus-related technologies, from dozens of Israeli entrepreneurs. The patents registered to Gal can be found here. Aside from a couple of patents related to dynamic tagging of objects in media content, think AI and machine learning, there was a patent for the use of AI to draft novel patent applications, and methods for systems for prioritization of treatments, vaccination, and testing.
Maier Fenster
Maier Fenster ran his own business, Fenster & Co., which merged into Ehrlich & Partners in 2006. He also owns a number of patents, and you can find some of those here.
Most of the patents are related to cardiovascular issues. Specifically, they deal with electrical field activation of heart tissue, and electric stimulation to determine position and size of specific areas within the body using sensors. Other patents focused on tracking individuals via internet, as well as a method for anonymously selecting subjects for treatment against infectious disease.
His personal blog mentioned over 40 patents and a brief read through his website appears to indicate that we are looking at a quirky inventor with a love for religion and family. His social media profile is fairly bland and there aren’t any peculiarities that would cause one to assume there was a conspiracy afoot.
Conclusion?
Without further evidence, and despite the unusual practice of patent lawyers being registered to specific patents, there are no smoking guns related to malfeasance, graphene, or self-assembling injections. The COVID patents are oddly authoritarian in nature, but most people would have to agree that they could be highly lucrative IP. We could dig deeper on social media, LinkedIn, or other platforms, but given the lack of any evidence of something obviously nefarious, that will have to wait until either Gal Ehrlich and Maier Fenster show up on the radar again.
It's Not The Graphene Oxide, It Is About Control