In 2012, Cal biochemistry and molecular biology professor Jennifer Doudna and microbiologist Emmanuelle Charpentier, now of the Max Planck Institute, changed the world. They invented CRISPR-Cas9, a gene editing tool

Then in 2013, MIT bioengineer Feng Zhang published a paper in the journal Science that outlined a CRISPR process specifically for eukaryotic cells, i.e., those from higher plants and animalsAt that point, the CRISPR saga bifurcated into two parts: the research narrative and the legal fight.

[Berkeley law professor Robert ]Merges set it up this way: UC maintains that it has never been determined who first developed eukaryotic CRISPR applications, that CRISPR basically uses the same process for viruses and eukaryotic cells, and that the February decision should be reversed. But the patent trial court found that there is no interference in fact, which in this case basically means the inventions are not the same, said Merges.

Its like Cal claims it invented cookies, and then Broad says it invented chocolate-chip cookies, he says. If Cals [pending] patent is verified and Broads also is upheld, you could end up with a situation where a biotech company would need licenses from both Cal and Broad for a CRISPR application. That kind of bundled license is very common in the world ofpatents.

The GLP aggregated and excerpted this blog/article to reflect the diversity of news, opinion, and analysis. Read full, original post: The Current CRISPR Patent Dispute, Explained

For more background on the Genetic Literacy Project, read GLP on Wikipedia

Originally posted here:

What you need to know about the legal battle over CRISPR patents - Genetic Literacy Project

Comments are closed.