The CRISPR patent war is not over? Not just the waves in the courtroom

In the patent battle CRISPR-Cas9 this revolutionary gene editing technology, the Broad Institute of MIT and Harvard, co-founded by Harvard University and MIT, won a big victory in February this year. After the ruling, the judges awarded the patent for the use of this technology in the development of new treatments for mammalian cells and diseases to Feng Zhang (Feng Zhang) and the Brod Institute where he works. That's bad news for their rival, Jennifer Doudna, a biochemist at the University of California, Berkeley. Doudna first discovered how to use CRISPR to edit DNA, but not directly in living cells. In 2012, Dudner and Carpentier (Emmanuelle Charpentier) first published that they had invented a simple and precise gene editing technology that can be carried out in vitro, but then in a paper published by Zhang Feng's research team in January 2013, They used the same technology but studied it in plant, animal and human cells.

The two sides of the research in the patent application has led to a vast debate, in the end who should get CRISPR applied to plant and animal cells patent? Is it Dudna, who first invented this technology, or Zhang Feng, who really applied this technology to biological systems, so that the value of this technology can be greatly enhanced in human gene therapy, genetically modified crops and animal gene modification? Although the University of California Dudner and the collaborating Carpentier research team filed patent applications for CRISPR technology earlier, Brod Research, which filed late, chose a fast-track review process to accelerate the application process to ensure that its own patents were approved earlier. The Broad Institute's application specifically emphasizes the use of CRISPR-Cas9 for gene editing in eukaryotic cells, including any type of animal, while the University of California's application does not limit the use of this technology in eukaryotic or prokaryotic cells.

Since no researcher was 100% sure that Dudner's research at that time could also be used in eukaryotic cells such as human cells, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office ruled on February 16 that the CRISPR-Cas9 gene editing technology proposed by the Brod Institute did not conflict with the patent application filed by the University of California, and Zhang Feng could continue to own his patent. The ruling does not nulligate or deny the patent applications of either the Broad Institute or the University of California. The ruling may not have as much material impact on these companies as the stock price movement, and the University of California, Dudner, may soon be able to acquire a broader range of patents than those owned by the Brod Institute. The interpretation of the judgment by the legal profession is that the patents applied by the two parties are obviously different, and the patent applications of the two parties do not conflict or overlap. The verdict found that the Brod Institute was able to retain the patent applied for, while the University of California's ongoing patent application was sent back to the patent examiner who was in charge at the beginning.

Controversy affecting the scientific community

After the patent decision came out, Dudner tried to explain the decision in a positive way. She pointed out that although Zhang Feng has the patent for using CRISPR in cell experiments, she still has the patent because she was the first team to invent CRISPR. Dudner's previous interpretation of the ruling concluded that they are still the patent owners of CRISPR, saying that they may intend to make it necessary for other researchers who want to use CRISPR technology to obtain a license from them, as well as use in mammalian cells. If so, this will continue to stir up court controversy, and the legal teams on both sides will continue to be busy. Some people believe that Zhang Feng won the patent war because the Brod Institute paid to apply to the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office for a fast track review (fast track review). But Zhang's research is so revolutionary compared to Dudner's that it's not a necessary procedure.

The verdict will hit the start-up company.

In any case, the industry is still the first to bear the brunt of the patent dispute, with CRISPR Therapeutics and Intellia Therapeutic founded by Carpentier and Dudna Laboratories respectively, and Biosciences and ERS Genomics, a small biotechnology company Caribou licensed by Carpentier and Dudna. Among them, on the day the judgment was announced, the share price of Intellia Therapeutic and CRISPR Therapeutics fell by nearly 10%, while the share price of Editas Medicine, the company authorized by Feng Zhang's patent, rose by nearly 30% after the news was announced. For the three start-ups most directly related to CRISPR, the impact of the patent conflict decision is huge.

Some analysts believe that the result may be that CRISPR Therapeutics and Intellia Therapeutics and Editas Medicine need to license some technologies from each other. As the procedure for handling patent conflicts has been concluded, the patent application filed by the University of California will once again return to the normal examination procedure and be handled by the patent examiner. Previous examiners have determined that the application submitted by the University of California is feasible, and the University of California believes that they have a good chance of obtaining a patent for CRISPR in any cell through the application. After the conflict verdict, the University of California also said it was optimistic that their application would be approved soon. The results seem to be conflicting, with the University of California having a patent on the technology applied to all cells, while the Brod Institute has a patent on the technology applied to eukaryotic cells. If this is the end result, companies that want to use CRISPR technology will likely have to obtain authorization from both parties. The Brod Institute said they believe that CRISPR should continue to be used in scientific research around the world to help people improve their knowledge in the field of biology and develop technologies to treat human diseases. At the same time, they also said that CRISPR technology will continue to be provided to the global academic community for free use, but companies that make money from the technology-related applications will need to pay for authorization to use it.

News source:http://technews.tw/2017/03/02/patent-office-hands-win-in-crispr-battle-to-broad-institute/

This news was re-edited and reorganized by the Huaxun team and added analytical comments.