CRISPR Toast?

The old Patent Office: 1924

From time to time, items relating to the seemingly-endless CRISPR gene-editing technology patent litigation involving UC and others appear. Earlier reports on this topic can be found by using the search engine and typing in "CRISPR." Below is a link to the latest item from Science Magazine, an account that doesn't sound great for the UC side:

https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2020/09/latest-round-crispr-patent-battle-has-apparent-victor-fight-continues

Excerpt: ...A statement from a University of California spokesperson says it is "pleased" with the [September 10th] ruling, noting that it denied several of the Broad [Institute’s] motions.* The [Patent Trial and Appeal Board - PTAB] "has ruled in our favor in most instances and will continue with the interference proceeding to determine which party was the first to invent CRISPR in eukaryotes,” the statement says. “[W]e remain confident that the PTAB will ultimately recognize that the [Jennifer] Doudna [of UC-Berkeley] and [Emmanuelle] Charpentier [of Max Planck Institute] team was first to invent the CRISPR-Cas9 technology in eukaryotic cells.”

A statement issued by the [opposing] Broad [Institute] calls for something akin to a peace treaty. “Although we are prepared to engage in the process before the PTAB and are confident these patents have been properly issued to Broad, we continue to believe it is time for all institutions to move beyond litigation and instead work together to ensure wide, open access to this transformative technology,” the statement says. “The best thing, for the entire field, is for the parties to reach a resolution and for the field to focus on using CRISPR technology to solve today’s real-world problems.”

Many observers of the patent battle long have hoped that the Broad and [the team involving UC] will reach a settlement, but [Jacob Sherkow, a patent attorney] thinks it’s less likely now. “Almost every outcome is stacked in Broad’s favor,” he says. If the [team involving UC] wins, he says, they will have the patent for the single molecule guide, but the Broad will not lose its eukaryotic patent and, at worst, will have to share it. If [the team involving UC] loses, “they’re toast, they come away empty,” says Sherkow. “But I’ve been wrong about settlement before so there’s every expectation that I’ll be wrong again.”

The PTAB ruling does not specify a date for its next hearing.

====

*Broad Institute of MIT and Harvard was launched in 2004 to improve human health by using genomics to advance our understanding of the biology and treatment of human disease, and to help lay the groundwork for a new generation of therapies. Source: https://www.broadinstitute.org/about-us