6888 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 14 / Monday, January 25, 2021 / Notices 

K. Coordination with State Regulatory 

Authorities 

In the event that a material 

supervisory determination subject to a 

request for review is the joint product of 

the FDIC and a State regulatory 

authority, the Director, DCP, the 

Director, RMS, or the Director, CISR, as 

appropriate, will promptly notify the 

appropriate State regulatory authority of 

the request, provide the regulatory 

authority with a copy of the institution’s 

request for review and any other related 

materials, and solicit the regulatory 

authority’s views regarding the merits of 

the request before making a 

determination. In the event that an 

appeal is subsequently filed with the 

Office, the Office will notify the 

institution and the State regulatory 

authority of its decision. Once the Office 

has issued its determination, any other 

issues that may remain between the 

institution and the State authority will 

be left to those parties to resolve. 

L. Effect on Supervisory or Enforcement 

Actions 

The use of the procedures set forth in 

these Guidelines by any institution will 

not affect, delay, or impede any formal 

or informal supervisory or enforcement 

action in progress during the appeal or 

affect the FDIC’s authority to take any 

supervisory or enforcement action 

against that institution. 

M. Effect on Applications or Requests 

for Approval 

Any application or request for 

approval made to the FDIC by an 

institution that has appealed a material 

supervisory determination that relates 

to, or could affect the approval of, the 

application or request will not be 

considered until a final decision 

concerning the appeal is made unless 

otherwise requested by the institution. 

N. Prohibition on Examiner Retaliation 

The FDIC has an experienced 

examination workforce and is proud of 

its professionalism and dedication. 

FDIC policy prohibits any retaliation, 

abuse, or retribution by an agency 

examiner or any FDIC personnel against 

an institution. Such behavior against an 

institution that appeals a material 

supervisory determination constitutes 

unprofessional conduct and will subject 

the examiner or other personnel to 

appropriate disciplinary or remedial 

action. Institutions that believe they 

have been retaliated against are 

encouraged to contact the Regional 

Director for the appropriate FDIC region. 

Any institution that believes or has any 

evidence that it has been subject to 

retaliation may file a complaint with the 

Director, Office of the Ombudsman, 

Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, 

3501 Fairfax Drive, Suite E–2022, 

Arlington, Virginia, 22226, explaining 

the circumstances and the basis for such 

belief or evidence and requesting that 

the complaint be investigated and 

appropriate disciplinary or remedial 

action taken. The Office of the 

Ombudsman will work with the 

appropriate Division Director to resolve 

the allegation of retaliation. 

Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation. 

By order of the Board of Directors. 

Dated at Washington, DC, on January 19, 

2021. 

James P. Sheesley, 

Assistant Executive Secretary. 

[FR Doc. 2021–01547 Filed 1–22–21; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6714–01–P 

FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION 

Sunshine Act Meeting 

TIME AND DATE: Thursday, January 28, 

2021 at 10:00 a.m. 

PLACE: Virtual meeting. Note: Because of 

the covid–19 pandemic, we will 

conduct the open meeting virtually. If 

you would like to access the meeting, 

see the instructions below. 

STATUS: This meeting will be open to the 

public. to access the virtual meeting, go 

to the commission’s website 

www.fec.gov and click on the banner to 

be taken to the meeting page. 

MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED: 

Draft Advisory Opinion 2020–06: 

Escobar 

Audit Division Recommendation 

Memorandum on the Mississippi 

Republican Party (A17–15) 

Management and Administrative 

Matters 

CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION: 

Judith Ingram, Press Officer; Telephone: 

(202) 694–1220. 

Authority: Government in the Sunshine 

Act, 5 U.S.C. 552b. 

Laura E. Sinram, 

Acting Secretary and Clerk of the 

Commission. 

[FR Doc. 2021–01594 Filed 1–21–21; 11:15 am] 

BILLING CODE 6715–01–P 

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION 

[File No. 192 3172] 

Everalbum, Inc.; Analysis of Proposed 

Consent Order To Aid Public Comment 

AGENCY: Federal Trade Commission. 

ACTION: Proposed consent agreement; 

request for comment. 

SUMMARY: The consent agreement in this 

matter settles alleged violations of 

federal law prohibiting unfair or 

deceptive acts or practices. The attached 

Analysis of Proposed Consent Order to 

Aid Public Comment describes both the 

allegations in the draft complaint and 

the terms of the consent order— 

embodied in the consent agreement— 

that would settle these allegations. 

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before February 24, 2021. 

ADDRESSES: Interested parties may file 

comments online or on paper by 

following the instructions in the 

Request for Comment part of the 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section 

below. Please write ‘‘Everalbum, Inc.; 

File No. 192 3172’’ on your comment, 

and file your comment online at https:// 

www.regulations.gov by following the 

instructions on the web-based form. If 

you prefer to file your comment on 

paper, mail your comment to the 

following address: Federal Trade 

Commission, Office of the Secretary, 

600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Suite 

CC–5610 (Annex D), Washington, DC 

20580, or deliver your comment to the 

following address: Federal Trade 

Commission, Office of the Secretary, 

Constitution Center, 400 7th Street SW, 

5th Floor, Suite 5610 (Annex D), 

Washington, DC 20024. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

James Trilling (202–326–3497), Bureau 

of Consumer Protection, Federal Trade 

Commission, 600 Pennsylvania Avenue 

NW, Washington, DC 20580. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Pursuant 

to Section 6(f) of the Federal Trade 

Commission Act, 15 U.S.C. 46(f), and 

FTC Rule 2.34, 16 CFR 2.34, notice is 

hereby given that the above-captioned 

consent agreement containing a consent 

order to cease and desist, having been 

filed with and accepted, subject to final 

approval, by the Commission, has been 

placed on the public record for a period 

of thirty (30) days. The following 

Analysis to Aid Public Comment 

describes the terms of the consent 

agreement and the allegations in the 

complaint. An electronic copy of the 

full text of the consent agreement 

package can be obtained at https://

www.ftc.gov/news-events/commissionactions. 

You can file a comment online or on 

paper. For the Commission to consider 

your comment, we must receive it on or 

before February 24, 2021. Write 

‘‘Everalbum, Inc.; File No. 192 3172’’ on 

your comment. Your comment— 

including your name and your state— 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 14 / Monday, January 25, 2021 / Notices 6889 

will be placed on the public record of 

this proceeding, including, to the extent 

practicable, on the https://

www.regulations.gov website. 

Due to the COVID–19 pandemic and 

the agency’s heightened security 

screening, postal mail addressed to the 

Commission will be subject to delay. We 

strongly encourage you to submit your 

comments online through the https://

www.regulations.gov website. 

If you prefer to file your comment on 

paper, write ‘‘Everalbum, Inc.; File No. 

192 3172’’ on your comment and on the 

envelope, and mail your comment to the 

following address: Federal Trade 

Commission, Office of the Secretary, 

600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Suite 

CC–5610 (Annex D), Washington, DC 

20580; or deliver your comment to the 

following address: Federal Trade 

Commission, Office of the Secretary, 

Constitution Center, 400 7th Street SW, 

5th Floor, Suite 5610 (Annex D), 

Washington, DC 20024. If possible, 

submit your paper comment to the 

Commission by courier or overnight 

service. 

Because your comment will be placed 

on the publicly accessible website at 

https://www.regulations.gov, you are 

solely responsible for making sure your 

comment does not include any sensitive 

or confidential information. In 

particular, your comment should not 

include sensitive personal information, 

such as your or anyone else’s Social 

Security number; date of birth; driver’s 

license number or other state 

identification number, or foreign 

country equivalent; passport number; 

financial account number; or credit or 

debit card number. You are also solely 

responsible for making sure your 

comment does not include sensitive 

health information, such as medical 

records or other individually 

identifiable health information. In 

addition, your comment should not 

include any ‘‘trade secret or any 

commercial or financial information 

which . . . is privileged or 

confidential’’—as provided by Section 

6(f) of the FTC Act, 15 U.S.C. 46(f), and 

FTC Rule 4.10(a)(2), 16 CFR 4.10(a)(2)— 

including in particular competitively 

sensitive information such as costs, 

sales statistics, inventories, formulas, 

patterns, devices, manufacturing 

processes, or customer names. 

Comments containing material for 

which confidential treatment is 

requested must be filed in paper form, 

must be clearly labeled ‘‘Confidential,’’ 

and must comply with FTC Rule 4.9(c). 

In particular, the written request for 

confidential treatment that accompanies 

the comment must include the factual 

and legal basis for the request, and must 

identify the specific portions of the 

comment to be withheld from the public 

record. See FTC Rule 4.9(c). Your 

comment will be kept confidential only 

if the General Counsel grants your 

request in accordance with the law and 

the public interest. Once your comment 

has been posted on the https://

www.regulations.gov website—as legally 

required by FTC Rule 4.9(b)—we cannot 

redact or remove your comment from 

that website, unless you submit a 

confidentiality request that meets the 

requirements for such treatment under 

FTC Rule 4.9(c), and the General 

Counsel grants that request. 

Visit the FTC website at http://

www.ftc.gov to read this Notice and the 

news release describing the proposed 

settlement. The FTC Act and other laws 

that the Commission administers permit 

the collection of public comments to 

consider and use in this proceeding, as 

appropriate. The Commission will 

consider all timely and responsive 

public comments that it receives on or 

before February 24, 2021. For 

information on the Commission’s 

privacy policy, including routine uses 

permitted by the Privacy Act, see 

https://www.ftc.gov/site-information/ 

privacy-policy. 

Analysis of Proposed Consent Order To 

Aid Public Comment 

The Federal Trade Commission 

(‘‘Commission’’ or ‘‘FTC’’) has accepted, 

subject to final approval, an agreement 

containing a consent order from 

Everalbum, Inc., also doing business as 

Ever and Paravision (‘‘Everalbum’’ or 

‘‘Respondent’’). The proposed consent 

order (‘‘proposed order’’) has been 

placed on the public record for thirty 

(30) days for receipt of comments from 

interested persons. Comments received 

during this period will become part of 

the public record. After thirty (30) days, 

the Commission again will review the 

agreement and the comments received, 

and will decide whether it should 

withdraw from the agreement or make 

final the agreement’s proposed order. 

Since 2015, Everalbum has operated 

‘‘Ever,’’ a photo storage and organization 

application available as an iOS or 

Android mobile application (‘‘app’’) and 

in web and desktop formats. Ever allows 

consumers to upload photos and videos 

(collectively, ‘‘content’’) from mobile 

devices, computers, or social media or 

cloud-based storage service accounts to 

Ever’s cloud servers. In February 2017, 

Everalbum launched a new feature of 

the Ever mobile app, called ‘‘Friends.’’ 

The Friends feature uses face 

recognition to organize users’ photos by 

faces of the people who appear in them. 

When Everalbum launched the Friends 

feature, it enabled face recognition by 

default for all users of the Ever mobile 

app. 

Everalbum’s application of face 

recognition to Ever app users’ content 

has not been limited to providing the 

Friends feature. The Commission’s 

proposed complaint alleges that, in four 

instances, Everalbum used images it 

extracted from Ever users’ photos in the 

development of face recognition 

technology. In one such instance, 

Everalbum used the resulting face 

recognition technology both in the Ever 

app and to build the face recognition 

services offered by its enterprise brand, 

Paravision (formerly Ever AI). 

The proposed two-count complaint 

alleges that Everalbum violated Section 

5(a) of the FTC Act by misrepresenting 

the company’s practices with respect to 

Ever users’ content. 

Proposed complaint Count I alleges 

that Everalbum misrepresented the 

circumstances under which the 

company would apply face recognition 

to Ever users’ content. According to the 

proposed complaint, Everalbum 

published a help article entitled ‘‘What 

is Face Recognition?’’ on its website in 

July 2018. The proposed complaint 

alleges that the help article represented 

that the Ever app’s ‘‘Friends’’ feature 

was not active—and, therefore, that 

Everalbum would not apply face 

recognition technology to users’ 

content—unless users affirmatively 

enabled the feature. The proposed 

complaint further alleges that the help 

article was false or misleading, because, 

until April 2019, for users in most 

geographic locations, Everalbum 

applied face recognition to users’ 

content by default and users could not 

use an app setting to turn off face 

recognition. 

Proposed complaint Count II alleges 

that Everalbum misrepresented that the 

company would delete the content of 

Ever users who chose to deactivate their 

Ever accounts. According to the 

proposed complaint, when Ever users 

sought to deactivate their accounts, 

Everalbum presented them with pop-up 

messages that represented that account 

deactivation would result in Everalbum 

deleting their content. The proposed 

complaint alleges that Everalbum also 

made a similar representation in 

response to consumer inquiries and in 

its privacy policy. Despite its 

representations, Everalbum allegedly 

did not delete any users’ content upon 

account deactivation and instead stored 

the content indefinitely. 

The proposed order contains 

provisions to address Respondent’s 

conduct and prevent it from engaging in 

the same or similar acts or practices in 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with NOTICES
6890 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 14 / Monday, January 25, 2021 / Notices 

1Paravision, https://www.paravision.ai/ (last 

visited on Jan. 4, 2020). 

2Compl., In the Matter of Everalbum, Inc., 

Comm’n File No. 1923172. This is not the only 

photo-sharing application that has drawn scrutiny 

for its ties to facial recognition and surveillance 

technology. Kashmir Hill & Aaron Krolik, How 

Photos of Your Kids Are Powering Surveillance 

Technology, N.Y. Times (Oct. 11, 2019), https://

www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/10/11/ 

technology/flickr-facial-recognition.html. 

3The Commission voted 3–2 on a settlement with 

Google and YouTube that allowed the companies to 

retain algorithms and other technologies enhanced 

by illegally obtained data on children. Based on my 

analysis, the Commission also allowed Google and 

YouTube to profit from their conduct, even after 

paying a civil penalty. See Dissenting Statement of 

Commissioner Rohit Chopra In the Matter of Google 

LLC and YouTube, LLC, Comm’n File No. 1723083 

(Sep. 4, 2019), https://www.ftc.gov/publicstatements/2019/09/statement-commissioner-rohitchopra-regarding-youtube. The Commission voted 

3–2 on a settlement with Facebook to address 

unlawful facial recognition practices that violated a 

2012 Commission order. Like the Google/YouTube 

settlement, Facebook was not required to forfeit any 

facial recognition or other related technologies. The 

settlement also provided an unusual immunity 

clause for senior executives, including Mark 

Zuckerberg and Sheryl Sandberg. See also 

Dissenting Statement of Commissioner Rohit 

Chopra In re Facebook, Inc., Comm’n File No. 

1823109 (Jul. 24, 2019), https://www.ftc.gov/publicstatements/2019/07/dissenting-statementcommissioner-rohit-chopra-regarding-matterfacebook. 

4Statement of Commissioner Rohit Chopra 

Regarding the Report to Congress on Protecting 

Older Adults, Comm’n File No. P144400 (Oct. 19, 

2020), https://www.ftc.gov/public-statements/2020/ 

10/statement-commissioner-rohit-chopra-regardingreport-congress-protecting; Rohit Chopra & Samuel 

A.A. Levine, The Case for Resurrecting the FTC 

Act’s Penalty Offense Authority (Oct. 29, 2020), 

https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_

id=3721256. 

5Compl., supra note 2. 

the future. Provision I of the proposed 

order prohibits Respondent from 

making misrepresentations related to 

the collection, use, disclosure, 

maintenance, or deletion of Covered 

Information (as defined in the order); 

consumers’ ability to control any of 

these actions; the extent to which 

Everalbum accesses or permits access to 

Covered Information; the extent, 

purpose, and duration of Everalbum’s 

retention of Covered Information after 

consumers deactivate their accounts; or 

the extent to which Everalbum 

otherwise protects the privacy, security, 

availability, confidentiality, or integrity 

of any Covered Information. 

Part II of the proposed order requires 

Respondent to clearly and 

conspicuously disclose, and obtain 

consumers’ affirmative express consent 

for, all purposes for which it will use or 

share User’s Biometric Information 

before using the information to create 

data needed for face recognition 

analysis or to develop face recognition 

models or algorithms. 

Part III of the proposed order requires 

Respondent to delete (A) photos and 

videos of Ever app Users who requested 

deactivation of their accounts, (B) face 

recognition data that it created without 

obtaining Users’ affirmative express 

consent, and (C) models and algorithms 

it developed in whole or in part using 

images from Users’ photos. 

Parts IV through VII of the proposed 

order are reporting and compliance 

provisions, which include 

recordkeeping requirements and 

provisions requiring Respondent to 

provide information or documents 

necessary for the Commission to 

monitor compliance. Part VIII of the 

proposed order states that the order will 

remain in effect for 20 years, with 

certain exceptions. 

The purpose of this analysis is to aid 

public comment on the proposed order. 

It is not intended to constitute an 

official interpretation of the complaint 

or proposed order, or to modify in any 

way the proposed order’s terms. 

By direction of the Commission. 

April J. Tabor, 

Acting Secretary. 

Statement of Commissioner Rohit 

Chopra in the Matter of Everalbum, Inc. 

Today’s facial recognition technology 

is fundamentally flawed and reinforces 

harmful biases. I support efforts to enact 

moratoria or otherwise severely restrict 

its use. Until such time, it is critical that 

the FTC meaningfully enforce existing 

law to deprive wrongdoers of 

technologies they build through 

unlawful collection of Americans’ facial 

images and likenesses. 

The case of Everalbum is a troubling 

illustration of just some of the problems 

with facial recognition. Everalbum 

operates a business line called 

Paravision, which developed and 

marketed facial recognition technology, 

including to clients in the security and 

air travel industries.1 The company 

enhanced their facial recognition 

technology by allegedly baiting 

consumers into using Ever, a ‘‘free’’ app 

that allowed users to store and modify 

photos.2

As outlined in the complaint, 

Everalbum made promises that users 

could choose not to have facial 

recognition technology applied to their 

images, and that users could delete the 

images and their account. In addition to 

those promises, Everalbum had clear 

evidence that many of the photo app’s 

users did not want to be roped into 

facial recognition. The company broke 

its promises, which constitutes illegal 

deception according to the FTC’s 

complaint. This matter and the FTC’s 

proposed resolution are noteworthy for 

several reasons. 

First, the FTC’s proposed order 

requires Everalbum to forfeit the fruits 

of its deception. Specifically, the 

company must delete the facial 

recognition technologies enhanced by 

any improperly obtained photos. 

Commissioners have previously voted to 

allow data protection law violators to 

retain algorithms and technologies that 

derive much of their value from illgotten data.3 This is an important course 

correction. 

Second, the settlement does not 

require the defendant to pay any 

penalty. This is unfortunate. To avoid 

this in the future, the FTC needs to take 

further steps to trigger penalties, 

damages, and other relief for facial 

recognition and data protection abuses. 

Commissioners have voted to enter into 

scores of settlements that address 

deceptive practices regarding the 

collection, use, and sharing of personal 

data. There does not appear to be any 

meaningful dispute that these practices 

are illegal. However, since 

Commissioners have not restated this 

precedent into a rule under Section 18 

of the FTC Act, we are unable to seek 

penalties and other relief for even the 

most egregious offenses when we first 

discover them.4

Finally, the Everalbum matter makes 

it clear why it is important to maintain 

states’ authority to protect personal 

data. Because the people of Illinois, 

Washington, and Texas passed laws 

related to facial recognition and 

biometric identifiers, Everalbum took 

greater care when it came to individuals 

in these states.5 The company’s 

deception targeted Americans who live 

in states with no specific state law 

protections. 

With the tsunami of data being 

collected on individuals, we need all 

hands on deck to keep these companies 

in check. State and local governments 

have rightfully taken steps to enact 

bans, moratoria, and other restrictions 

on the use of these technologies. While 

special interests are actively lobbying 

for federal legislation to delete state data 

protection laws, it will be important for 

Congress to resist these efforts. Broad 

federal preemption would severely 

undercut this multi-front approach and 

leave more consumers less protected. 

It will be critical for the Commission, 

the states, and regulators around the 

globe to pursue additional enforcement 

actions to hold accountable providers of 

facial recognition technology who make 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 14 / Monday, January 25, 2021 / Notices 6891 

6Prepared Remarks of Commissioner Rohit 

Chopra at Asia Pacific Privacy Authorities 54th 

APPA Forum (Dec. 7, 2020), https://www.ftc.gov/ 

public-statements/2020/12/prepared-remarkscommissioner-rohit-chopra-asia-pacific-privacy. 

false accuracy claims and engage in 

unfair, discriminatory conduct.6

[FR Doc. 2021–01430 Filed 1–22–21; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6750–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND 

HUMAN SERVICES 

National Institutes of Health 

National Institute of Dental & 

Craniofacial Research; Notice of 

Closed Meeting 

Pursuant to section 10(d) of the 

Federal Advisory Committee Act, as 

amended, notice is hereby given of the 

following meeting. 

The meeting will be closed to the 

public in accordance with the 

provisions set forth in sections 

552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., 

as amended. The grant applications and 

the discussions could disclose 

confidential trade secrets or commercial 

property such as patentable material, 

and personal information concerning 

individuals associated with the grant 

applications, the disclosure of which 

would constitute a clearly unwarranted 

invasion of personal privacy. 

Name of Committee: NIDCR Special Grants 

Review Committee. 

Date: February 18–19, 2021. 

Time: 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. 

Agenda: To review and evaluate grant 

applications. 

Place: National Institute of Dental and 

Craniofacial Research, National Institutes of 

Health, 6701 Democracy Boulevard, Room 

666, Bethesda, MD 20892 (Virtual Meeting). 

Contact Person: Latarsha J. Carithers, 

Scientific Review Officer, Scientific Review 

Branch, National Institute of Dental and 

Craniofacial Research, National Institutes of 

Health, 6701 Democracy Boulevard, Room 

666, Bethesda, MD 20892, 301–594–4859, 

latarsha.carithers@nih.gov. 

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance 

Program Nos. 93.121, Oral Diseases and 

Disorders Research, National Institutes of 

Health, HHS) 

Dated: January 19, 2021. 

Melanie J. Pantoja, 

Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory 

Committee Policy. 

[FR Doc. 2021–01486 Filed 1–22–21; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4140–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND 

HUMAN SERVICES 

National Institutes of Health 

Government-Owned Inventions; 

Availability for Licensing 

AGENCY: National Institutes of Health, 

HHS. 

ACTION: Notice. 

SUMMARY: The invention listed below is 

owned by an agency of the U.S. 

Government and is available for 

licensing to achieve expeditious 

commercialization of results of 

federally-funded research and 

development. Foreign patent 

applications are filed on selected 

inventions to extend market coverage 

for companies and may also be available 

for licensing. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Carol A. Salata at 240–627–3727; 

csalata@niaid.nih.gov. Licensing 

information and copies of the U.S. 

patent application listed below may be 

obtained by communicating with the 

indicated licensing contact at the 

Technology Transfer and Intellectual 

Property Office, National Institute of 

Allergy and Infectious Diseases, 5601 

Fishers Lane, Rockville, MD 20852; tel. 

301–496–2644. A signed Confidential 

Disclosure Agreement will be required 

to receive copies of unpublished patent 

applications. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Technology description follows: 

Prefusion-Stabilized Fusion (F) 

Glycoprotein Vaccine Immunogens for 

Human Metapneumovirus 

Description of Technology: 

Human metapneumovirus (hMPV) 

infections have been shown as a 

common cause of upper and lower 

respiratory diseases such as 

bronchiolitis and pneumonia in young 

children, the elderly, and other 

immunocompromised individuals. 

Studies show that infections by the nonsegmented negative strand RNA virus 

begin with attachment and entry of viral 

glycoproteins that mediate fusion with 

host cellular membranes. Like for the 

human respiratory syncytial virus 

(hRSV), a viral entry is initiated by the 

fusion (F) protein. Given its role in 

hMPV entry, the F protein has thus been 

a target for eliciting neutralizing 

antibodies and development of novel 

protein-based therapeutic vaccines. 

Researchers at the Vaccine Research 

Center (VRC) of the National Institute of 

Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) 

developed improved recombinant 

human metapneumovirus (hMPV) F 

proteins stabilized in the prefusion 

conformation that can elicit potent 

neutralizing antibodies against 

infection. Double and triple stabilized 

candidates were designed with interand intraprotomer disulfide mutations 

that increase protein production and 

show improved antigenic recognition by 

prefusion-specific antibodies. These 

second-generation immunogens 

constitute an improvement over the first 

generation constructs and are 

characterized by additional stabilization 

that results in optimal neutralization 

responses. 

The second-generation stabilized 

prefusion hMPV F immunogens may be 

an ideal vaccine immunogen to elicit 

broad potent neutralizing antibodies 

against metapneumovirus infection, 

particularly in children and 

immunocompromised adults. 

This technology is available for 

licensing for commercial development 

in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 209 and 37 

CFR part 404. 

Potential Commercial Applications: 

• A promising vaccine immunogen to 

elicit broad potent neutralizing 

antibodies against metapneumovirus 

infection, particularly in children and 

immunocompromised adults. 

Competitive Advantages: 

• There are no approved vaccines or 

therapeutics against the second leading 

cause of pediatric viral lower respiratory 

tract infection in infants and young 

children. 

• Second-generation hMPV F 

immunogens induce higher titer 

neutralizing responses than firstgeneration versions in mice. 

Development Stage: Preclinical 

Research. 

Inventors: Peter D. Kwong (NIAID); 

Guillaume Stewart-Jones (NIAID); John 

R. Mascola (NIAID); Ursula J. Buchholz 

(NIAID); Peter L. Collins (NIAID); Jason 

Gorman (NIAID); Li Ou,(NIAID); 

Tongquing Zhou (NIAID); Baoshan 

Zhang (NIAID); Wing-Pui Kong (NIAID); 

Yaroslav Tsybovsky (NCI). 

Publications: Liu, P., et al (2013). A 

live attenuated human 

metapneumovirus vaccine strain 

provides complete protection against 

homologous viral infection and crossprotection against heterologous viral 

infection in BALB/c mice. Clinical and 

Vaccine Immunology, 20(8), 1246–1254. 

Battles, M.B., et al, (2017). Structure 

and immunogenicity of pre-fusionstabilized human metapneumovirus F 

glycoprotein. Nature communications, 

8(1), 1–11. 

Intellectual Property: HHS Reference 

Number E–131–2019 includes U.S. 

Provisional Patent Application Number 

63/017,581, filed on 04/29/2020. 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with NOTICES