Round one of CRISPR patent legal battle goes to the Broad Institute

first_imgA University of California attorney addresses three judges presiding over the CRISPR patent hearing. Dana Verkouteren Round one of CRISPR patent legal battle goes to the Broad Institute Ding, ding, ding! CRISPR patent fight enters next round Click to view the privacy policy. Required fields are indicated by an asterisk (*) Country * Afghanistan Aland Islands Albania Algeria Andorra Angola Anguilla Antarctica Antigua and Barbuda Argentina Armenia Aruba Australia Austria Azerbaijan Bahamas Bahrain Bangladesh Barbados Belarus Belgium Belize Benin Bermuda Bhutan Bolivia, Plurinational State of Bonaire, Sint Eustatius and Saba Bosnia and Herzegovina Botswana Bouvet Island Brazil British Indian Ocean Territory Brunei Darussalam Bulgaria Burkina Faso Burundi Cambodia Cameroon Canada Cape Verde Cayman Islands Central African Republic Chad Chile China Christmas Island Cocos (Keeling) Islands Colombia Comoros Congo Congo, the Democratic Republic of the Cook Islands Costa Rica Cote d’Ivoire Croatia Cuba Curaçao Cyprus Czech Republic Denmark Djibouti Dominica Dominican Republic Ecuador Egypt El Salvador Equatorial Guinea Eritrea Estonia Ethiopia Falkland Islands (Malvinas) Faroe Islands Fiji Finland France French Guiana French Polynesia French Southern Territories Gabon Gambia Georgia Germany Ghana Gibraltar Greece Greenland Grenada Guadeloupe Guatemala Guernsey Guinea Guinea-Bissau Guyana Haiti Heard Island and McDonald Islands Holy See (Vatican City State) Honduras Hungary Iceland India Indonesia Iran, Islamic Republic of Iraq Ireland Isle of Man Israel Italy Jamaica Japan Jersey Jordan Kazakhstan Kenya Kiribati Korea, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Republic of Kuwait Kyrgyzstan Lao People’s Democratic Republic Latvia Lebanon Lesotho Liberia Libyan Arab Jamahiriya Liechtenstein Lithuania Luxembourg Macao Macedonia, the former Yugoslav Republic of Madagascar Malawi Malaysia Maldives Mali Malta Martinique Mauritania Mauritius Mayotte Mexico Moldova, Republic of Monaco Mongolia Montenegro Montserrat Morocco Mozambique Myanmar Namibia Nauru Nepal Netherlands New Caledonia New Zealand Nicaragua Niger Nigeria Niue Norfolk Island Norway Oman Pakistan Palestine Panama Papua New Guinea Paraguay Peru Philippines Pitcairn Poland Portugal Qatar Reunion Romania Russian Federation Rwanda Saint Barthélemy Saint Helena, Ascension and Tristan da Cunha Saint Kitts and Nevis Saint Lucia Saint Martin (French part) Saint Pierre and Miquelon Saint Vincent and the Grenadines Samoa San Marino Sao Tome and Principe Saudi Arabia Senegal Serbia Seychelles Sierra Leone Singapore Sint Maarten (Dutch part) Slovakia Slovenia Solomon Islands Somalia South Africa South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands South Sudan Spain Sri Lanka Sudan Suriname Svalbard and Jan Mayen Swaziland Sweden Switzerland Syrian Arab Republic Taiwan Tajikistan Tanzania, United Republic of Thailand Timor-Leste Togo Tokelau Tonga Trinidad and Tobago Tunisia Turkey Turkmenistan Turks and Caicos Islands Tuvalu Uganda Ukraine United Arab Emirates United Kingdom United States Uruguay Uzbekistan Vanuatu Venezuela, Bolivarian Republic of Vietnam Virgin Islands, British Wallis and Futuna Western Sahara Yemen Zambia Zimbabwe By Jon CohenFeb. 15, 2017 , 2:30 PM How the battle lines over CRISPR were drawncenter_img Jennifer Doudna, a UC Berkeley structural biologist, also still has a patent pending for the CRISPR invention. UC in May 2012 filed a patent for Doudna, Emmanuelle Charpentier (then of Umeå University in Sweden), and their colleagues for their discovery that CRISPR, an immune system used by bacteria, could serve as a genome-editing tool in any type of cell. But the Doudna/Charpentier team, as they reported in a landmark paper published online by Science on 28 June 2012, at that point had only used CRISPR to cut DNA in test tube studies. In contrast, a team led by the Broad’s Feng Zhang reported in the 3 January 2013 online edition of Science that it had used CRISPR to cut DNA in human cells, opening the door for the tool to be used in medicine. The U.S. Patent Trial and Appeal Board ruled today in favor of the Broad Institute in Cambridge, Massachusetts, in the initial legal step of a high stakes battle over who will control the valuable intellectual property linked to CRISPR, the powerful genome-editing tool. The decision may be appealed by the University of California (UC), however, which last year requested the “interference” from the patent board because it contends that a team of scientists it represented invented the technology and that the Broad researchers piggybacked on their discovery.The patent board decision declared “Broad has persuaded us that the parties claim patentably distinct subject matter, rebutting the presumption created by declaration of this interference.” Jacob Sherkow, an intellectual property attorney at the New York Law School in New York City, says the decision could be “a decisive knock out for the Broad.” He says he now expects UC to take the case to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. Sign up for our daily newsletter Get more great content like this delivered right to you! Country Email The CRISPR battle Broad beginning in December 2012 filed a dozen patents based on the eukaryotic use of CRISPR, and paid the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) to do a fast-track review. The first of those patents issued in April 2014, stunning many researchers in the CRISPR field—and some of the companies that had formed around the promising new technology.In a teleconference for the media held by UC, Doudna stressed that today’s interference decision means USTPO will now move forward on her patent application and that it “likely” will issue, potentially forcing companies that want to use CRISPR to pay licensing fees to both Broad and UC. “They have a patent on green tennis balls. We [likely] will have a patent on all tennis balls,” says Doudna. “I don’t think it really makes sense.”Lynn Pasahow, an attorney with Fenwick & West in Mountain View, California, who represented the UC in the case said no decision has yet been made about whether there will be an appeal. “At this point we are studying the opinion that came out this morning and the university is considering all of its options,” says Pasahow. When asked whether UC would now seek to cut a deal with the Broad—which was attempted at the start of the interference—Pasahow said “there’s no requirement that the two parties work out a settlement.” Dana Carroll, a biochemist at the University of Utah in Salt Lake City who specializes in ways to cut DNA, testified on behalf of UC in the patent interference, contending that applying the Doudna/Charpentier team’s discovery to human cells was “obvious”—indeed, Doudna’s group published a paper showing that CRISPR could edit eukaryotic cells a few weeks after Zhang published his team’s study. The patent board did not agree, however. “One of ordinary skill in the art would not have reasonably expected a CRISPR-Cas9 system to be successful in a eukaryotic environment,” it wrote.“I am disappointed that the Patent Office did not agree with what I saw as a clear and compelling perspective on the case,” Carroll says.Broad issued a statement that says the competing patents “are about different subjects and do not interfere with each other.” The statement says Broad has “deep respect” for the contributions made by Doudna and Charpentier, who have already won many prestigious awards for their work. It also notes that USPTO now has issued 50 patents related to CRISPR—14 have gone to Broad—and predicts many more will be issued.last_img read more