CRISPR Patent Ruling: 3 Different Takes; KQED, February 23, 2017

Lindsey Hoshaw, KQED; 

CRISPR Patent Ruling: 3 Different Takes

"The Feb. 15 ruling from the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office let Berkeley’s rival–the Broad Institute jointly owned by Harvard and MIT–keep its existing patents issued in 2014. UC Berkeley has yet to say whether or not it will appeal...

So what’s next? Only Berkeley knows; the university has said it will “carefully consider all options.”

Science journalists are abuzz about what this means for biotech. Here’s a sampling of what they’re saying:"

Why the CRISPR patent verdict isn’t the end of the story; Nature, February 17, 2017

Heidi Ledford, Nature; 

Why the CRISPR patent verdict isn’t the end of the story

"The US Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) issued a key verdict this week in the battle over the intellectual property rights to the potentially lucrative gene-editing technique CRISPR–Cas9.

It ruled that the Broad Institute of Harvard and MIT in Cambridge could keep its patents on using CRISPR–Cas9 in eukaryotic cells. That was a blow to the University of California in Berkeley, which had filed its own patents and had hoped to have the Broad’s thrown out."