Click For Photo: https://tctechcrunch2011.files.wordpress.com/2016/07/gettyimages-517322026.jpg?w=764&h=400&crop=1
The decision of who owned the rights to a hotly disputed CRISPR gene editing patent came down in favor of the Broad Institute of MIT and Harvard today so you’d think the mood would be sour at the University of California, Berkeley, the other contender in the case. But Berkeley’s Jennifer Doudna tells TechCrunch this is a positive for her.
“I’m actually delighted to know the claims of our original patent have been allowed by the patent examiner and can now move forward towards issuance,” she said.
Judge - Rules - CRISPR-Cas9 - Patents - Broad
Judge rules CRISPR-Cas9 patents belong to Broad Institute of Harvard and MIT WTF is CRISPR?
Doudna is credited with being the first to figure out how to use CRISPR to program cells using the Cas9 enzyme. UC Berkeley filed a patent on behalf of Doudna’s work but the Broad Institute used a fast-track option to beat UC Berkeley to the punch when it came to a patent for the same technique on the more complex eukaryotic cells — a nuanced difference that Doudna and her co-inventor Emmanuelle Charpentier claimed was an “obvious” next step in the process and should not be considered for a separate patent.
Science - World - Doudna - Cohorts - US
While much of the science world seemed to agree with Doudna and her cohorts, the U.S. patent office thought the Broad Institute deserved a separate patent for making that leap.
But, as Doudna points out that, though the judge did not throw out the Broad Institute’s claims to that patent, it also doesn’t throw out her claim that her patent should be able to cover all cells. “We’re actually anticipating getting our...
Wake Up To Breaking News!