the battle to own CRISPR patent

[sushi]

It’s called CRISPR-Cas9 — one of the century’s biggest scientific breakthroughs in genetic engineering — and now three major universities are battling it out in court over who owns a patent on the revolutionary technology.

On Tuesday, UC Berkeley lawyers defended the university’s claim to patent CRISPR in a dispute that went before a panel of judges at the U.S Patent and Trademark headquarters in Alexandria, Virginia. The Broad Institute of MIT and Harvard is also claiming it owns the rights to CRISPR.

CRISPR is a gene-editing tool that allows scientists to manipulate DNA by snipping out part of a mutated gene and substituting a healthy gene. It has huge implications — from yielding new cancer therapies to correcting genetic disorders to modifying plant and animal DNA.

Editing DNA Using CRISPR
crispr01crispr02crispr_03_bug
“If Berkeley wins it means they’re essentially going to control which commercial companies are able to develop the technology going forward and that will be a huge change in the status quo,” says New York Law School professor says Jake Sherkow.

Sherkow says billions of dollars could be at stake. Companies that use the technology will likely need to pay royalties to whomever owns it — Broad or Berkeley. Many start-ups including Addgene — a biotech non-profit working with Broad — are already using CRISPR.

Both UC Berkeley and the Broad Institute of MIT and Harvard claim to have invented the technology and filed for patents.

Berkeley filed first and even though Broad filed later, Broad fast-tracked its application, which was approved while Berkeley’s was still pending. This is what Berkeley is contesting — the fact that Broad’s application was approved while its own was still under review.

The court has already ruled that the patent will be issued to the scientists who prove the CRISPR technology works in transforming the genes of a particular kind of cell — eukaryotic cells, those found in plants and animals, including humans.

In their research, Broad Institute bioengineer Feng Zhang and his team used eukaryotic cells, whereas UC Berkeley biochemist Jennifer Doudna used bacteria cells, not eukaryotic cells.

However, Doudna argues that UC Berkeley has a right to the patent because any skilled scientist could apply her team’s research technique to eukaryotic cells.

Berkeley’s lawyers faced more intense questioning on Tuesday than the Broad’s.

“It does speak to some of the judges’ skepticism of the University of California’s claims,” says Sherkow.

The patent judges could make a decision by February but Sherkow says whichever side loses will likely appeal. So a final resolution may not come until 2018 or 2019.

https://ww2.kqed.org/futureofyou/2016/12/08/billions-at-stake-uc-berkeley-gets-day-in-court-vs-harvardmit/

 

[Pyropyro]

How the heck were they able to fast track that application? There's something fishy about USPTO on how they deal with these patents.

 

[Ex-User (13503)]

Eh.... I think patents as a concept are obsolete and a hindrance to society and progress. Fuck all 3 of the greedy squabblers.

 

[Cognisant]

If research cannot be patented who will fund it?

I think the proceeds of the patent should be split by the relative wages of the researchers involved, basically the research institute that gets the most money out of it should be the one that spent the most money on employing researchers.

 

[green acid]

What kind of fortune is to be made from owning CRISPR, I wonder? Those would be interesting numbers. I remember my brother in law talking about this technology about nine years ago. I ponderered it that it would eventually arrive, and make the world fucking weird.

 

[Pyropyro]

What kind of fortune is to be made from owning CRISPR, I wonder? Those would be interesting numbers. I remember my brother in law talking about this technology about nine years ago. I ponderered it that it would eventually arrive, and make the world fucking weird.

Probably in the billions. CRISPR is ridiculously sexy especially in the field of genetic manipulation.

For a good analogy, our current tech in genetic manipulation is like using boxing gloves to arrange lego bricks. CRISPR removes the gloves off.

 

[Ex-User (13503)]

If research cannot be patented who will fund it?

I think the proceeds of the patent should be split by the relative wages of the researchers involved, basically the research institute that gets the most money out of it should be the one that spent the most money on employing researchers.

In a situation where benefactors throw money at inventors and wind up with ownership of the usage rights, the individual inventor doesn't really seem to benefit anyway.

If the applications of an invention are viewed as separate from its discovery, application isn't stifled, so niches are filled more quickly, and more total niches become occupied because small applications aren't limited. This means more value generated overall and faster, which would naturally benefit innovative individuals, who tend to be prone to seeing applications and would most efficiently use profit for successful reinvestment. (really kind of spitballing here, tbh)

Not to mention the ton of money wasted on lawsuits.