The invention of CRISPR in the past decade has given researchers the ability to manipulate genetic information, with potentially revolutionary implications for agricultural and medicinal sectors – but it has also led to lengthy litigation.
CRISPR was originally reported by Jennifer Doudna and Emmanuelle Charpentier in 2012, as an outgrowth of their work on bacterial immunity at the University of California at Berkeley and the University of Vienna (collectively, “CVC”). However, their publication did not explicitly show that CRISPR could edit genes in eukaryotic cells (almost every type and species of cell except bacteria), and there was some evidence that their earliest attempts to achieve eukaryotic CRISPR were unsuccessful.
The first scientific publication demonstrating successful eukaryotic CRISPR was by Feng Zhang and colleagues at The Broad Institute, MIT and Harvard University (collectively, “Broad”).
Both teams filed patent applications, understanding that the key to bringing this technology to market lied in their ability to be patent-protected. The Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB”) instituted an interference proceeding to determine who invented eukaryotic CRISPR first. Two years ago, PTAB came to the conclusion that Broad had the rights to eukaryotic CRISPR applications and that rights to CRISPR more generally were owned by CVC.
In June 2019, however, the PTAB announced another interference proceeding between the same parties, again involving the rights to eukaryotic applications of CRISPR. After having failed to secure eukaryotic CRISPR, the CVC team filed a more narrow application, which reopened the investigation. To date, PTAB has completed the preliminary phase of the interference and has not substantively changed its position. As PTAB enters the priority phase, it will be interesting to see whose claim prevails.
These circumstances leave the ownership status of eukaryotic CRISPR in the balance for the foreseeable future. As investments are made in CRISPR-based technologies, the licensing and commercialization of these patents may play a pivotal role in its practical applications.
Author: Shadi Varkiani
Photo Credit: https://unsplash.com/@_louisreed
Authors
Expertise
Insights
-
Intellectual Property Litigation
Hershey’s Kisses Go to Court – Federal Court of Appeal Decision in PIM Brands Inc. v. Hershey Chocolate & Confectionery LLC
The Federal Court of Appeal’s recent decision in Promotion in Motion, Inc. (PIM Brands, Inc.) v. Hershey Chocolate & Confectionery LLC offers fresh guidance on how courts evaluate survey evidence… -
Intellectual Property Litigation
CIPO Explores Fast-Tracking Patents for Innovation in Priority Sectors
Industry Minister Mélanie Joly is reportedly evaluating a proposal from the Canadian Intellectual Property Office (“CIPO”) that would accelerate patent applications in artificial intelligence… -
Intellectual Property Litigation
Rock History and Copyright: The Show Goes On
Veteran rock photographer, Neil Zlozower, reportedly sued the Rock & Roll Hall of Fame for allegedly using his copyrighted images of Eddie Van Halen in its museum exhibits without his permission… -
Intellectual Property Litigation
Patent Reinstatement Throws “Glory” Cherries in the Pits
The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Washington (“District Court”) reportedly reinstated the Canadian government’s patent for the “Staccato” cherry, developed by Agriculture and… -
Intellectual Property Litigation
Sportswear Brand Sues University Over Similarities in Merchandise
As reported by the Associated Press, Columbia Sportswear has sued Columbia University, claiming that the university infringed the sportswear company’s trademark and breached an agreement between the… -
Intellectual Property Litigation
Call Dropped: Verizon Cuts Deal in $175M Patent Clash
Verizon and Headwater Research LLC have reportedly agreed to settle a patent infringement lawsuit that ended with a $175 million USD jury verdict against the telecom giant. Headwater, a…