"A dispute between two research institutions over which invented Crispr-Cas9, a technology scientists hope will reduce gene-editing to something akin to cutting and pasting text on a computer, enters a crucial phase Tuesday."
Issues and developments related to IP, AI, and OM, examined in the IP and tech ethics graduate courses I teach at the University of Pittsburgh School of Computing and Information. My Bloomsbury book "Ethics, Information, and Technology", coming in Summer 2025, includes major chapters on IP, AI, OM, and other emerging technologies (IoT, drones, robots, autonomous vehicles, VR/AR). Kip Currier, PhD, JD
Showing posts with label CRISPR genome-editing methods. Show all posts
Showing posts with label CRISPR genome-editing methods. Show all posts
Monday, December 5, 2016
Who Owns Key Gene Technology? Question Heads to Court; Wall Street Journal, 12/5/16
Joe Palazzolo and Amy Dockser Marcus, Wall Street Journal; Who Owns Key Gene Technology? Question Heads to Court:
Saturday, October 8, 2016
Dramatic twists could upend patent battle over CRISPR genome-editing method; Science, 10/5/16
Jon Cohen, Science; Dramatic twists could upend patent battle over CRISPR genome-editing method:
"The 9-month-old patent battle over CRISPR, a novel genome-editing tool that could have immense commercial value, has taken two surprising twists. Last week, attorneys for the Broad Institute in Cambridge, Massachusetts, one of the research organizations vying for CRISPR rights, submitted motions that could let it win even if it loses. And yesterday, a new player in the drama, a French biopharmaceutical company called Cellectis, may have made the whole fight moot, revealing it has just been issued patents that it says broadly cover genome-editing methods, including CRISPR. The Broad Institute, a marriage between Harvard University and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, holds 13 CRISPR patents that are under fire from the University of California (UC) and two co-petitioners. This past January, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) said it would review the patent claims in what’s known as an interference proceeding. That has triggered an epic legal battle over CRISPR intellectual property (IP) that centers on the Broad Institute’s issued patents and a patent application from UC that’s still under review."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)