A federal appeals court on Monday struck another blow against the University of California’s hopes of invalidating key CRISPR patents held by the Broad Institute of MIT and Harvard, ruling unanimously that a U.S. patent board correctly concluded that the Broad’s patents did not “interfere” with those that UC had applied for.

Barring an appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court, which is highly unlikely to accept the case, or a request for the full U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit to consider the case, the long and bitter legal saga is largely over, at least in the U.S. (The fight over CRISPR patents in Europe continues.)

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.

  • CRISPR finds certain sequences to change. However, there are only four (4) amino acids involved in DNA and that means there is a limited number of possibilities. If CRISPER is set to cleave at a certain sequence of AA’s, then it will do so every time this sequence exists and it is illogical to presume this sequence ONLY occurs at the sites you are interested in. Therefore, the use of this technique is based upon the random splicing of DNA where ever that sequence exists, meaning there is not only potential benefit but a greater probability for adverse splicing as well. Remember, there is nothing in this technology which focuses the splicing to the area of DNA interest. The adage don’t run with scissors may never be more applicable. This is money driven. Not knowledge or evolutionary driven. The evolutionary process is a process which does not violate viability. CRISPR will bypass the very safeguards that biology has placed. The problems will never be seen because you don’t know what you should be looking for when splicing is occurring at every CGA, or TAT, or whatever sequence you play with resulting in unknown DNA->ribosomal transcription and translation not to mention mitotic effects we aren’t anticipating. If humans have demonstrated anything, it’s the lust for money and power that drives too many.

    • I very much understand how CRISPER works Chava. It’s a random clipping of a sequence without the knowledge base to determine exactly where that clipping is occurring. E.g. using a simpler concept, if you tell a person to knock out every fence that follows three pink, two yellow and a green fence, then you will most assuredly know that fence down. But presuming that that sequence only exists where you want to knock fences down and no where else without ramifications is extremely naive; especially given the base pair sequences. More like a shotgun than a rifle or more of an axe than a scalpel. I hope that clarifies, and yes “Mike” there are only 4 amino acids in DNA and 4 in RNA, thymidine replaced by uracil. Certainly you’ve heard of these, eh Mike.

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

Privacy Policy