The CRISPR-Cas9 Patent Appeal: Where Do We Go From Here?

Abstract

An appellate court in the United States affirmed the Patent Office's finding that the Broad Institute's patents covering eukaryotic applications of CRISPR-Cas9 was separately patentable over the University of California's (UC) earlier patent application. This does not bode well for future negotiations between UC and the Broad Institute, even as nuclease technology continues to eclipse the original dispute. This perspective explores the appellate decision, where UC goes from here, and what this all means for scientists in the future.

Immaculate Conception? Priority and Invention in the CRISPR Patent Dispute

“…10,266,850 (or '850)-the patent that surprisingly resulted from the first interference. 3 But the PTAB's decision in this second interference casts a shadow over that patent on two grounds: the doctrines of enablement and written description. The doctrine of enablement typically requires that a patent enables a person of ordinary skill in the art to ''make and use'' the ''full scope'' of the patent at the time it was first filed.…”

“…Over the past 4 years, I have provided something of a running commentary on the long-running CRISPR patent drama for this journal. 2,3 In this perspective, I aim to explain the recent interference decision, its practical effects for commercial CRISPR research, and what all this says about the intersection of science and patent law.…”