If both the BioNTech and the Comirnaty vaccines (Pfizer) contain identical formulations–and the FDA had assured us that this is the case–then both vaccines must share a unique and identical patent (i.e., intellectual property.)That is, both entities do represent the same vaccine. How, then, is it possible for the FDA to assign two separate designations (e.g., EUA and FDA-approved) for the same, identical vaccine? Pfizer cleverly distinguishes BioNTech from Comirnaty by framing each one differently in terms of separate legal/business/contractual structures. And, it gives the same vaccine two separate names: BioNTech and Comirnaty are designed to be confusing, aren't they? However, we are more smarter than we are confused. Follow the logic; if the formulation/patent is the same vaccine in both cases, then it seems to me that the FDA has made a serious (intentional?) mistake in providing the same vaccine with two entirely different designations (i.e., EUA and FDA-approved.) Either the vaccine is EUA or it is FDA-approved, but it does not make sense for the vaccine to be both.Calling all attorneys! Patent, intellectual property, and lawyers familiar with federal regulatory law, we need you desperately.