CRISPR Patents Revoked Following Nobel Prize Winners’ Withdrawal

Introduction

The CRISPR-Cas9 gene-editing technology has been hailed as one of the most significant scientific breakthroughs in recent years. However, the patents surrounding this technology have been the subject of much controversy. In a recent development, the European Patent Office (EPO) has revoked two key CRISPR patents held by the Broad Institute of MIT and Harvard.

Background on CRISPR-Cas9

CRISPR-Cas9 is a gene-editing system that allows scientists to make precise changes to DNA. The system is based on a naturally occurring defense mechanism used by bacteria to protect themselves from viruses. CRISPR-Cas9 has the potential to revolutionize medicine, agriculture, and other industries.

The Patent Dispute

The Broad Institute filed for patents on CRISPR-Cas9 in 2013. However, the University of California, Berkeley, also claimed to have developed the technology independently. In 2017, the USPTO ruled in favor of the Broad Institute, but the decision was appealed to the PTAB.

The PTAB’s Decision

In its decision, the PTAB found that the Broad Institute’s patents were invalid because they were not novel. The PTAB also found that the Broad Institute had not adequately disclosed the invention in its patent applications.

The EPO’s Decision

The EPO’s decision to revoke the CRISPR patents is a significant development. The EPO is one of the most respected patent offices in the world, and its decision is likely to have a major impact on the CRISPR patent landscape.

The Impact of the EPO’s Decision

The EPO’s decision is likely to have a number of implications for the CRISPR patent landscape. First, it is likely to make it more difficult for the Broad Institute to enforce its CRISPR patents. Second, it could open the door to other companies to develop and commercialize CRISPR-based products.

Conclusion

The EPO’s decision to revoke the CRISPR patents is a major development in the CRISPR patent landscape. It is likely to have a significant impact on the ability of the Broad Institute to enforce its patents and could open the door to other companies to develop and commercialize CRISPR-based products.