With the Broad Institute’s big win on Wednesday in its battle over key patents on the CRISPR-Cas9 genome editing technology, everything is now crystal clear. Kidding!

The University of California seemed to be the loser, since the patent judges denied its effort to effectively block the Broad’s patents. But in a call with reporters, Paul Alivisatos, UC Berkeley’s vice chancellor for research, was upbeat that the ruling would allow UC’s patent claims to finally “move forward.” Berkeley biochemist Jennifer Doudna, whose pioneering CRISPR discoveries UC has been trying to patent, pronounced herself “delighted.” Alivisatos dodged a question about why, if UC found the decision so great, it had issued a statement saying it was “considering all of its options,” including an appeal.

Unlock this article by subscribing to STAT Plus and enjoy your first 30 days free!

GET STARTED

What is it?

STAT Plus is STAT's premium subscription service for in-depth biotech, pharma, policy, and life science coverage and analysis. Our award-winning team covers news on Wall Street, policy developments in Washington, early science breakthroughs and clinical trial results, and health care disruption in Silicon Valley and beyond.

What's included?

  • Daily reporting and analysis
  • The most comprehensive industry coverage from a powerhouse team of reporters
  • Subscriber-only newsletters
  • Daily newsletters to brief you on the most important industry news of the day
  • Online intelligence briefings
  • Frequent opportunities to engage with veteran beat reporters and industry experts
  • Exclusive industry events
  • Premium access to subscriber-only networking events around the country
  • The best reporters in the industry
  • The most trusted and well-connected newsroom in the health care industry
  • And much more
  • Exclusive interviews with industry leaders, profiles, and premium tools, like our CRISPR Trackr.

Leave a Comment

Please enter your name.
Please enter a comment.

  • Clearly, I’m quite naive, but isn’t UC a publicly funded not-for-profit institution? Why, then, would it have any interest in owning intellectual property rights? If these discoveries were paid for by tax-payer dime, shouldn’t the intellectual property be public domain?

    • Much of research at large Universities like UC does not come from taxpayers. But the Federal NIH does fund alot, with the hope the patents will create new companies and grow the economy. UC is non-profit, and plows the income into new labs and top researchers to stay leading edge. Otherwise nobody could compete with the likes of MIT, Harvard, and Stanford for talent and research funds.

  • If what Zhang did was not obvious (LOL), than, it should imply that if I find a different “non obvious” way to make crispr/cas9 work in eukaryotic cells (changing some/all aspects of the procedure), I should be able to patent it too. Or not?

A roundup of STAT’s top stories of the day in science and medicine

Privacy Policy