Biotech Patents For Crispr Gene Editing
Biotech Patents for CRISPR Gene Editing
CRISPR (Clustered Regularly Interspaced Short Palindromic Repeats) is a revolutionary gene-editing technology that allows precise modification of DNA. The rise of CRISPR has led to significant legal disputes over patent ownership, licensing, and the scope of patentable subject matter.
I. Basics of Biotech Patents
A. Patentability Requirements
A biotech invention must satisfy:
Novelty – The invention must be new.
Non-obviousness – It cannot be an obvious variation of existing techniques.
Utility – Must have a practical application.
Patentable Subject Matter – For gene editing:
Natural DNA sequences are not patentable
Modified sequences, engineered proteins, or methods of editing can be patented
Enablement – The patent must disclose sufficient information for others to replicate the invention.
B. CRISPR-Specific Challenges
Overlapping claims – Multiple researchers often file patents for similar CRISPR techniques.
Broad vs. narrow claims – e.g., CRISPR in eukaryotes vs. prokaryotes.
Ownership disputes – Academic and commercial institutions often contest rights.
II. Major CRISPR Patent Dispute: Broad Institute vs. UC Berkeley
A. Background
UC Berkeley (Jennifer Doudna, Emmanuelle Charpentier)
Filed patents for CRISPR-Cas9 gene editing in in vitro (test tube) systems.
Broad Institute (Feng Zhang, MIT/Harvard)
Filed patents for CRISPR-Cas9 in eukaryotic cells (plants, animals, humans).
B. Legal Battle
Issue: Who has priority over CRISPR patents for eukaryotic applications?
Board of Patent Appeals (PTAB, USA):
Initially, UC Berkeley argued that Broad’s patent derived from their work. Broad argued they were the first to demonstrate CRISPR in eukaryotic cells.
C. Decision
PTAB (2017):
Broad Institute patents valid and independent, even though Doudna discovered CRISPR first.
Reason: Broad’s application solved the technical challenge of CRISPR in eukaryotic cells, which was non-obvious.
D. Significance
Demonstrated that narrow, application-specific patents can coexist with broad foundational patents.
Established precedent for biotech patent “first to demonstrate” in a particular context.
III. Key Case Laws in Biotech and CRISPR Patenting
Here are more than five important cases, explained in detail:
1. Diamond v. Chakrabarty (1980)
Facts:
Genetically engineered bacterium that could break down crude oil.
Question: Can a genetically modified organism be patented?
Holding:
Supreme Court held yes, a genetically modified organism is patentable because it is man-made.
Reasoning:
“Anything under the sun made by man” can be patentable.
Natural organisms are not patentable, but engineered organisms are.
Significance:
Foundation for CRISPR patents.
Established principle that biotech inventions can be patented, not just mechanical inventions.
2. Association for Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics (2013)
Facts:
Myriad Genetics claimed patents over BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes.
Issue:
Are naturally occurring DNA sequences patentable?
Holding:
Naturally occurring DNA is not patentable, but cDNA (synthetic DNA) is patentable.
Significance for CRISPR:
Confirms that patents can only cover engineered sequences or methods, not natural genes.
Doudna and Broad patents focus on engineered methods, not raw DNA sequences.
3. Amgen Inc. v. Sanofi (2017)
Facts:
Biotech dispute over antibody patents.
Focused on enablement and written description requirements.
Holding:
Broad patents must enable the full scope claimed.
A patent claiming all antibodies that bind a target must describe enough examples to support the claim.
Significance for CRISPR:
CRISPR patents must disclose how to edit DNA in various cells, not just in a single test tube.
4. UC Berkeley v. Broad Institute (PTAB, 2017–2022)
Facts:
Already discussed above.
Legal Principle:
Independent patentability arises from solving a specific technical problem, even if basic discovery was made elsewhere.
Validates multiple patents on overlapping discoveries if practical applications differ.
5. Harvard v. University of Vienna (Hypothetical Case Based on European Litigation Patterns)
Facts:
Dispute over CRISPR patents in Europe.
Question: Does priority of invention or first filing matter under European Patent Office rules?
Holding:
EPO grants patents based on first to file, not first to invent.
Broad patents by Harvard/EMBL survived, even though Doudna/Charpentier discovered CRISPR first.
Significance:
Highlights jurisdictional differences:
U.S. considers practical demonstration and reduction to practice
Europe emphasizes first to file
6. Regents of the University of California v. Broad Institute (Federal Circuit, 2018)
Facts:
Appeal from PTAB decision on priority of CRISPR in eukaryotes.
Holding:
Federal Circuit upheld PTAB: Broad patents valid and independent.
Reasoning:
Solving technical hurdles in eukaryotic cells constituted non-obvious contribution.
Doudna’s foundational discovery was insufficient to invalidate Broad’s patent.
Impact:
Sets precedent that application-specific inventions can be patented even when broader fundamental discoveries exist.
7. CRISPR Licensing Settlements (Various, 2020+)
Doudna/Broad/Berkeley institutes have entered multi-billion-dollar licensing agreements with biotech companies.
Example: Caribou Biosciences, Intellia, Editas.
Legal principle: Commercial exploitation requires licensing from all relevant patent holders.
Demonstrates that patent disputes directly impact biotech innovation and commercialization.
IV. Doctrinal Summary
Foundational discovery vs. application-specific invention
Basic CRISPR discovery ≠ automatic patent rights for all uses
Each patent must solve a distinct technical problem
Patentable subject matter
Engineered CRISPR systems, modified Cas9 enzymes, and specific applications (plants, animals) are patentable.
Natural DNA sequences or generic knowledge are not patentable.
Enablement requirement
Patent must teach others how to use it.
Broad claims without sufficient detail can be invalidated.
Jurisdictional differences
U.S.: Practical demonstration matters.
Europe: Priority of filing is key.
V. Conclusion
CRISPR patenting illustrates the intersection of cutting-edge science and intellectual property law:
Doudna/Charpentier (UC Berkeley): Foundational CRISPR discovery
Feng Zhang (Broad Institute): Practical applications in eukaryotic cells
Key Principle: Patent rights depend on technical contribution, enablement, and application, not merely first discovery.
CRISPR disputes are a blueprint for future biotech patent battles, as every modification or delivery method may generate a new patent.
RELATED Blog
comments