- Posted by ISPE Boston
- On September 12, 2018
[The following post has been excerpted from “For Journalists: Statement and Background on the CRISPR Patent Decision” by Lee McGuire, Chief Communications Officer, Broad Institute of MIT and Harvard.]
A federal panel has again confirmed that the patents granted by USPTO to the Broad Institute, MIT and Harvard concerning CRISPR editing of eukaryotic genomes do not interfere with patent claims filed by the University of California, Berkeley and the University of Vienna.
Broad’s issued patents are for genome editing in eukaryotic (including animal, human, and plant) cells, while the claims in UCB’s application were based on studies in cell-free systems and not directed to genome editing in eukaryotic cells.
The Federal Circuit made the correct decision in upholding the United States Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s ruling. The patents and applications of Broad Institute and UCB are about different subjects and do not interfere with each other. The PTAB decision was clearly supported by sufficient evidence and followed applicable legal standards.
It is time for all institutions to move beyond litigation. We should work together to ensure wide, open access to this transformative technology.
The Broad Institute, MIT, and Harvard have worked for more than five years to ensure that CRISPR tools are widely available.
- We make CRISPR tools, knowledge, methods and other IP for genome editing freely available to the academic and non-profit community.
- We license CRISPR IP non-exclusively to companies to use in their own commercial research.
- In 2014, we developed the Inclusive Innovation Model — which allows a primary licensee to devote sufficient investment to develop CRISPR-based genome editing technology to treat human diseases, while supporting broad development of medicines to reach many patients.
- Last year, we joined discussions to create a non-exclusive joint licensing pool coordinated by MPEG LA. These discussions are well underway.
- Also last year, we reached an agreement that removed a major roadblock to the use of CRISPR-Cas9 genome editing in agriculture. This agreement included IP from private companies as well as from academic institutions — including IP that DuPont-Pioneer had licensed from University of California, although UC itself was not part of the discussions.
Over the last five years we have made multiple attempts to engage the University of California. These efforts began before UC initially licensed its IP, and have continued even after the US Patent Office ruled in favor of Broad. We have continued to reach out.
It is time for all institutions to work together to enable the broadest possible sharing and licensing of foundational CRISPR IP to accelerate research and improve human health. (Source: Broad Institute Website, 10 September, 2018)
To read the complete statement, click here https://www.broadinstitute.org/crispr/journalists-statement-and-background-crispr-patent-process