Archive for the ‘CRISPR/Cas9 & Gene Editing’ Category

Original Tweets Re-Tweets and Likes by @pharma_BI and @AVIVA1950 at #kisymposium for 17th annual Summer Symposium: Breakthrough Cancer Nanotechnologies: Koch Institute, MIT Kresge Auditorium, June 15, 2018, 9AM-4PM



Read Full Post »

National Academy of Sciences for work in chemical sciences: Jennifer Doudna, University of California, Berkeley

Reporter: Aviva Lev-Ari, PhD, RN



National Academy of Sciences awards for Raghavendra, Doudna

Prasad Raghavendra and Jennifer Doudna received awards this week from the National Academy of Sciences for work in computer science and chemical sciences, respectively.

Prasad Raghavendra, an associate professor of electrical engineering and computer science, and Jennifer Doudna, a professor of molecular and cell biology and of chemistry, were honored this week by the National Academy of Sciences for their innovative body of research.

Raghavendra shared the inaugural Michael and Sheila Held Prize with David Steurer, a professor of theoretical computer science at ETH Zurich, for “revolutionary contributions to the understanding of optimization and complexity in computer science, work that has relevance for solving the most difficult and intractable of computing problems.” The winners will share the $100,000 prize.

Doudna, a Howard Hughes Medical Institute investigator, received the 2018 NAS Award in Chemical Sciences for “pioneering discoveries on how RNA can fold to function in complex ways” and the invention, with Emmanuelle Charpentier, of the CRISPR-Cas9 gene-editing technology.

The winners will be honored in a ceremony on Sunday, April 29, during the National Academy of Sciences’ 155th annual meeting.

Raghavendra’s prize, awarded this year for the first time, was made possible through a bequest from the estate of Michael and Sheila Held. Doudna’s award, established in 1978 and currently supported by the Merck Company Foundation, is accompanied by a medal and a $15,000 prize.

Previous winners of the NAS Award in Chemical Sciences include Paul Alivisatos, a professor of chemistry and UC Berkeley’s executive vice chancellor and provost, chemistry professors emeritus Gabor Somorjai and Robert Bergman, and former chemistry professor Carolyn Bertozzi, who is now at Stanford University.

Another former UC Berkeley faculty member, James Allison, received the NAS’s 2018 Jessie Stevenson Kovalenko Medal “for important medical discoveries related to the body’s immune response to tumors.” He is now at the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center. All are among 18 awards to 21 scientists announced this week.

National Academy of Sciences announcement



Read Full Post »

CRISPR on TED Ideas worth spreading – Ellen Jorgensen

Reporter: Aviva Lev-Ari, PhD, RN

On same webpage see other CRISPR Talk on TED on the right hand side of the webpage



Read Full Post »

CRISPR snips a strand of DNA – Visualization of the Process

Reporter: Aviva Lev-Ari, PhD, RN


Watch what it actually looks like when CRISPR snips a strand of DNA


Molecular animations are an essential way to demystify and explain complex biological systems. Through the use of stunning imagery and attention to detail, Visual Science and Skoltech have captured the dynamic mechanisms of CRISPR-Cas proteins and their use as research tools.

 Jennifer Doudna, Professor of the Depts. of Molecular and Cell Biology and Chemistry at the UC Berkeley, Executive Director of the Innovative Genomics Institute

You can watch the animation, created by biologists at Russia’s Skoltech Institute and the Visual Science organization, below or at the latter’s website:

Read Full Post »

Developments in CRISPR Patent Dispute: EPO Revokes Broad’s CRISPR Patent

Curator: Aviva Lev-Ari, PhD, RN



Mixed views on Broad’s fate after EPO revokes CRISPR patent


EPO Revokes Broad’s CRISPR Patent

The Broad Institute of MIT and Harvard University is at risk of losing its dominant position over the intellectual property covering CRISPR gene-editing technology in Europe, after the European Patent Office (EPO) ruled today (January 17) that a foundational patent is revoked because the Broad did not meet EPO requirements to establish that its researchers were the first to use CRISPR in eukaryotes.

In addition to the highly publicized patent dispute between the Broad and the University of California over the rights to CRISPR gene editing in the U.S., the Broad has been fighting to maintain a number of patents over the technology in Europe. The issue revolves around a disagreement between the Broad and Rockefeller University over who should be named as inventors. The majority of patent applications filed by the Broad in Europe failed to name Rockefeller University itself, as well as Rockefeller researcher Luciano Marraffini, both of which were named on several of the documents filed to establish a priority date for the patent as early as December 2012. Changing the listed inventors goes against the EPO’s formal requirements for priority, leading the agency to rule this morning that the priority documents with the full list of inventors did not count toward establishing priority of the more-limited European filings.

“If you’ve got more than one person on a priority document, they are a singular legal unity,” explains Catherine Coombes, a senior patent attorney with HGF Limited in the U.K. “If you’re going to drop numbers . . . you need to transfer priority from everybody on the first.” Given the ongoing arbitration between the Broad and Rockefeller, it’s not surprising that the Broad did not procure this transfer, she adds.

Today’s decision is the first opposition heard in Europe, but at least 10 other Broad patents have been challenged, many of which have the same issue of leaving out certain inventors from those listed on the documents filed to establish priority. The EPO had put those other proceedings on hold while it looked into this first patent, Coombes says, but now it can apply its ruling to the other cases. “What we will expect to see over the next year or so is a number of the other Broad’s patents in Europe either being completely revoked or being severely limited in Europe.”

The Broad has announced that it will be appealing the EPO’s decision, but “I personally think it’s unlikely that we’ll see a change in direction,” Coombes says. She adds, however, that the institution does have one patent application that does name Rockefeller and Marraffini. “What I would suspect their patent attorneys would be doing is looking over the patent that doesn’t have this [priority] issue and trying to get more claims in that one.”



The Rockefeller University and Broad Institute of MIT and Harvard announce update to CRISPR-Cas9 portfolio filed by Broad

An update regarding inventorship and ownership of certain Broad filings relating to the use of the CRISPR-Cas9 system in eukaryotic cells

New York, NY, and Cambridge, Mass., January 15th, 2018

— The Rockefeller University and the Broad Institute of MIT and Harvard have settled their disagreement regarding inventorship and ownership of certain Broad filings relating to the use of the CRISPR-Cas9 system in eukaryotic cells. Rockefeller believed that its faculty member Dr. Luciano Marraffini, co-author with Broad’s Dr. Feng Zhang, on a seminal paper published in Science in 2013, Multiplex Genome Engineering Using CRISPR/Cas Systems, should have been maintained in these Broad eukaryote filings.



That Other CRISPR Patent Dispute

It’s possible the Rockefeller dispute may work its way in to the interference proceedings involving the Broad and UC Berkeley. Earlier this summer, the patent examiner on the Rockefeller’s application gave an initial rejection to some of the claims because they overlap with UC Berkeley’s patent application. Sherkow said it’s possible the examiner’s decision could be used as evidence to persuade the patent judges that Berkeley was first to develop CRISPR as a gene-editing tool.


Gene Editing Consortium of Biotech Companies: CRISPR Therapeutics $CRSP, Intellia Therapeutics $NTLA, Caribou Biosciences, ERS Genomics, UC, Berkeley (Doudna’s IP) and University of Vienna (Charpentier’s IP), is appealing the decisionruled that there was no interference between the two sides, to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, targeting patents from The Broad Institute.

Other potential casualties of the Rockefeller dispute are some of the Broad’s patents overseas, as Catherine Coombs describes today (August 31) in an opinion article. In a nutshell, patents abroad may be compromised if the applicants on US patents are not the same as those listed on corresponding international patents, Coombs explains.

Rockefeller, Marraffini, and Zhang all declined to comment on the ongoing dispute. The Broad offered a statement acknowledging that Rockefeller has been an important collaborator on CRISPR, and that the institutions share a couple of patent applications related to the tool’s application in prokaryotic cells. “Rockefeller has raised the question of whether its interests are more general,” the statement reads. “We appreciate that Rockefeller has raised this question and expect it will be resolved amicably between our institutions. This resolution will likely take some time.”

The disagreement between Rockefeller and the Broad concerns just one of hundreds of CRISPR-related patent families, noted Corinne Le Buhan, the CEO of IPStudies, a Switzerland-based firm that tracks CRISPR patents. Le Buhan said it’s likely more patent fights will arise. “There are lots of very close patents signed by different inventors,” she told The Scientist. “Based on what we’ve seen on the technology side we can anticipate there will be more disputes.”



Role of Immune system in gene therapy using CRISPR Cas9


Read Full Post »

CRISPR Based Research Awarded NHGRI Grants, The University of California, Berkeley’s Doudna will receive $2.1 million and The Broad Institute’s Zhang will receive $1.1 million

Reporter: Aviva Lev-Ari, PhD, RN


UPDATED on 10/10/2017

Gene Editing Market: CRISPR/CAS9 to be the fastest-growing technology segment – 2024

Request for Sample Copy of this Report @

Rising prevalence of cancer, infectious diseases, and other genetic disorders, and growing demand for personalized medicine should stimulate industry expansion. Furthermore, expansion and development in healthcare infrastructure should propel industry demand.

Gene editing market has its extensive application in therapeutic areas of hematology, infectious disease, oncology and muscular diseases. Hematology was recognized as the highest revenue generating segment in 2015, due to extensive use in investigating genetic function in experimental hematology. Infectious disease segment will also follow the robust growth trend with 15.2% CAGR during the forecast timeframe contributing to the overall revenue of over USD 2.5 billion by 2024.

For more information visit @

Growth Drivers:

1. Increased funding for genetics research
2. Increased R&D expenditure and growth of biotechnology
3. Increasing demand for synthetic genes
4. Growing use of genetically modified technology
5. Technology advancements




Jennifer Doudna of University of California, Berkeley, and Feng Zhang of the Broad Institute have both received separate grants from the National Human Genome Research Institute (NHGRI) for projects based on CRISPR technology.

Jennifer Doudna will receive $2.1 million to set up and run the Centre for Genome editing and Recording. The centre will address the challenges of accurately interrogating and manipulating DNA sequences in situ “at a scale and level of accuracy and not currently available” by developing technologies based on CRISPR-Cas9 that can “detect, alter and record the sequence and output of the genome in individual cells and tissues,” according to Doudna’s grant proposal.

Feng Zang will receive $1.1 million for a project that aims to develop a suite of tools for the interrogation of RNA based on CRISPR-Cas enzymes that target RNA in a programmable manner.

“Tools for transcript knockdown, translation upregulation, and transcript sensing will be developed, which, together, will enable dissection of genetic circuits in a dynamic, high-throughput manner, accelerating nearly all areas of biomedical science,” Zhang’s grant proposal said.

Doudna and Zhang both say they have the potential to advance the tool’s usefulness for human health purposes.

Read Full Post »

Appellate Brief Seeking Reversal of U.S. Patent Board Decision on CRISPR/Cas9 Gene Editing

Reporter: Aviva Lev-Ari, PhD, RN

[Boldface added]

  • Appeal seeks reversal of Patent Trial and Appeal Board decision terminating interference without determining priority of inventorship of CRISPR/Cas9 gene editing
  • Brief asserts that the Board failed to properly apply controlling U.S. Supreme Court and Federal Circuit precedents, and ignored evidence of multiple groups readily applying CRISPR/Cas9 gene editing to eukaryotic cells following teachings of Charpentier-Doudna team

As explained in UC’s brief, application of the correct legal standards to the case is believed to require reversal of the PTAB’s decision. For these reasons, UC requests that the Federal Circuit instruct the PTAB to reinstate the interference proceeding so that it can properly determine priority of inventorship, as previously requested by UC. The PTAB’s failures to consider pertinent evidence and apply appropriate legal standards should at the very least require the matter to be remanded so that the PTAB can properly consider the evidence related to obviousness and Broad’s no-interference-in-fact motion using appropriate legal standards.
In the PTAB’s February decision terminating the interference proceeding prematurely, it had not yet considered the teachings of UC’s own prior-filed patent application with respect to using CRISPR/Cas9 in eukaryotic cells. Instead, the PTAB only addressed the threshold question of whether use in eukaryotic cells can be separately patentable from use in all settings as covered by UC’s claims. However, determinations on the underlying substantive matters have recently been made in parallel prosecution before the U.S. Patent & Trademark Office (“USPTO”). The USPTO has rejected a series of patent applications filed by Broad that are directed to uses of CRISPR/Cas9 technology in eukaryotic cells as being non-novel in view of UC’s prior-filed patent application, which the USPTO examiners considered to have effectively taught use of the CRISPR/Cas9 technology in eukaryotic cells. In addition, patent applications filed by Sigma-Aldrich and Toolgen that similarly claim use of CRISPR/Cas9 in eukaryotic cells (both of which filed applications before Broad’s application) have likewise recently been rejected as being either non-novel or obvious in view of the prior-filed UC patent application with specific respect to its teachings regarding application of the invention to use in eukaryotic cells.


On 7/25/2017

CRISPR Therapeutics, Intellia Therapeutics, Caribou Biosciences and ERS Genomics Announce Appellate Brief Seeking Reversal of U.S. Patent Board Decision on CRISPR/Cas9 Gene Editing

On 4/13/2017:

Gene Editing Consortium of Biotech Companies: CRISPR Therapeutics $CRSP, Intellia Therapeutics $NTLA, Caribou Biosciences, ERS Genomics, UC, Berkeley (Doudna’s IP) and University of Vienna (Charpentier’s IP), is appealing the decisionruled that there was no interference between the two sides, to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, targeting patents from The Broad Institute.

Curator: Aviva Lev-Ari, PhD, RN

Read Full Post »

Older Posts »