Will the Supreme Court accept a UC Berkeley Appeal of the Sep. 10th, US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit decision to uphold the patent filed by the Broad Institute on CRISPR/Cas9 gene editing?
Reporter: Aviva Lev-Ari, PhD, RN
UPDATED on June 6, 2019
Several companies were founded on the initial CRISPR IP rights granted to various individuals and institutions. These companies include Intellia Therapeutics and its parent company, Caribou Biosciences (Berkeley), CRISPR Therapeutics and ERS Genomics (Emmanuelle Charpentier), and Editas Medicine (Broad) as well as the Broad Institute itself. Anyone aiming to commercialize CRISPR technology must obtain licenses from one or more of these companies. However, Broad and Berkeley have followed the long-standing recommendations that federally funded academic institutions grant non-exclusive licenses to university researchers and nonprofits.
ERS Genomics also offers non-exclusive licenses for research purposes and the commercialization of certain services and products, including, specifically, synthetic biology. Additionally, the Broad Institute offers non-exclusive licenses for companies selling reagents and other genome editing tools and for in-house commercial research. But they are clear they only offer exclusive licenses for human therapeutics. Editas holds most of the Broad’s IP rights for therapeutics but companies can potentially obtain licenses through what the Broad calls their “inclusive innovation” model.
If all of that weren’t complex enough, there are certain overlaps between the patents. For example, Editas, CRISPR Therapeutics, and Intellia all offer licenses to treat human diseases. But ERS Genomics specifically excludes a therapeutics option. Meanwhile, both Editas and Intellia offer licenses for stem cells, CAR-T cells, and Alpha-1 antitrypsin while Caribou Biosciences and the Broad Institute do not. In short, navigating the CRISPR IP thicket can be extremely confusing. And, unfortunately, it is likely to become even more so.
Image credit: Labiotech and Science News.
While Berkeley’s notice of allowance does help put out the flames, until recently, most of the fights have centered on the Cas9 protein. But, in the last several years, research has shown that the CRISPR-Cpf1 protein, also known as Cas12a, is potentially more effective than Cas9. Companies like Mammoth Biosciences have already been founded off of Cas12a technology. Patents involving the Cas12a-RNA complex are already pending on behalf of Berkeley and the Broad Institute.
SOURCE
https://synbiobeta.com/with-the-recent-patent-news-who-owns-crispr-now/
On 2018, Sep. 10th, the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit agreed to uphold the patent filed by the Broad Institute on CRISPR/Cas9 gene editing in organisms with complex cells – UC Berkeley team can appeal this decision to the US Supreme Court, it is unclear whether the Supreme Court will accept this case.
According to Appeal and Interference Statistics 11/30/2016
In recent years, more than half of PTAB’s decisions have been upheld. “The Federal Circuit heard three appeals of interferences in 2016,” said intellectual property expert Jacob Sherkow of New York Law School. “All three were at least affirmed in part. It’s completely unclear whether that’s meaningful — it’s an N of 3–but there you go.” Overall, on 155 appeals since PTAB was created in 2012, the Federal Circuit affirmed 120 on every issue, dismissed or reversed 21 on every issue, and issued partial decisions (that is, upholding parts of a PTAB decision and reversing others) in the other 14.
SOURCE
Disputed CRISPR Patents Stay with Broad Institute, U.S. Panel Rules
Three judges have released their decision
Based on
Appeal and Interference Statistics 11/30/2016
I recommend UC, Berkeley to Appeal to the Supreme Court the Sept 10th Decision.
2012pharmaceutical
Amandeep Kaur
Aashir Awan, Phd
Abhisar Anand
Adina Hazan
Alan F. Kaul, PharmD., MS, MBA, FCCP
alexcrystal6
anamikasarkar
apreconasia
aviralvatsa
David Orchard-Webb, PhD
danutdaagmailcom
Demet Sag, Ph.D., CRA, GCP
Dror Nir
dsmolyar
Ethan Coomber
evelinacohn
Gail S Thornton
Irina Robu
jayzmit48
jdpmd
jshertok
kellyperlman
Ed Kislauskis
larryhbern
Madison Davis
marzankhan
megbaker58
ofermar2020
Dr. Pati
pkandala
Rosalind Codrington, PhD
ritusaxena
Rick Mandahl
sjwilliamspa
Srinivas Sriram
stuartlpbi
Dr. Sudipta Saha
tildabarliya
vaishnavee24
zraviv06
zs22
This is very insightful. There is no doubt that there is the bias you refer to. 42 years ago, when I was postdocing in biochemistry/enzymology before completing my residency in pathology, I knew that there were very influential mambers of the faculty, who also had large programs, and attracted exceptional students. My mentor, it was said (although he was a great writer), could draft a project on toilet paper and call the NIH. It can’t be true, but it was a time in our history preceding a great explosion. It is bizarre for me to read now about eNOS and iNOS, and about CaMKII-á, â, ã, ä – isoenzymes. They were overlooked during the search for the genome, so intermediary metabolism took a back seat. But the work on protein conformation, and on the mechanism of action of enzymes and ligand and coenzyme was just out there, and became more important with the research on signaling pathways. The work on the mechanism of pyridine nucleotide isoenzymes preceded the work by Burton Sobel on the MB isoenzyme in heart. The Vietnam War cut into the funding, and it has actually declined linearly since.
A few years later, I was an Associate Professor at a new Medical School and I submitted a proposal that was reviewed by the Chairman of Pharmacology, who was a former Director of NSF. He thought it was good enough. I was a pathologist and it went to a Biochemistry Review Committee. It was approved, but not funded. The verdict was that I would not be able to carry out the studies needed, and they would have approached it differently. A thousand young investigators are out there now with similar letters. I was told that the Department Chairmen have to build up their faculty. It’s harder now than then. So I filed for and received 3 patents based on my work at the suggestion of my brother-in-law. When I took it to Boehringer-Mannheim, they were actually clueless.
This is very insightful. There is no doubt that there is the bias you refer to. 42 years ago, when I was postdocing in biochemistry/enzymology before completing my residency in pathology, I knew that there were very influential mambers of the faculty, who also had large programs, and attracted exceptional students. My mentor, it was said (although he was a great writer), could draft a project on toilet paper and call the NIH. It can’t be true, but it was a time in our history preceding a great explosion. It is bizarre for me to read now about eNOS and iNOS, and about CaMKII-á, â, ã, ä – isoenzymes. They were overlooked during the search for the genome, so intermediary metabolism took a back seat. But the work on protein conformation, and on the mechanism of action of enzymes and ligand and coenzyme was just out there, and became more important with the research on signaling pathways. The work on the mechanism of pyridine nucleotide isoenzymes preceded the work by Burton Sobel on the MB isoenzyme in heart. The Vietnam War cut into the funding, and it has actually declined linearly since.
A few years later, I was an Associate Professor at a new Medical School and I submitted a proposal that was reviewed by the Chairman of Pharmacology, who was a former Director of NSF. He thought it was good enough. I was a pathologist and it went to a Biochemistry Review Committee. It was approved, but not funded. The verdict was that I would not be able to carry out the studies needed, and they would have approached it differently. A thousand young investigators are out there now with similar letters. I was told that the Department Chairmen have to build up their faculty. It’s harder now than then. So I filed for and received 3 patents based on my work at the suggestion of my brother-in-law. When I took it to Boehringer-Mannheim, they were actually clueless.