echemi logo
Product
  • Product
  • Supplier
  • Inquiry
    Home > Active Ingredient News > Drugs Articles > "Gene magic scissors" patent dispute: Chinese patent has not been granted to Zhang Feng, but to his opponent

    "Gene magic scissors" patent dispute: Chinese patent has not been granted to Zhang Feng, but to his opponent

    • Last Update: 2017-06-22
    • Source: Internet
    • Author: User
    Search more information of high quality chemicals, good prices and reliable suppliers, visit www.echemi.com
    Source: surging news: the patent dispute on CRISPR / cas9 technology of "gene magic scissors" on June 22, 2017 has made new progress Although it lost in the United States at the beginning of this year, the European Patent Office and the British patent office said that the University of California, Berkeley, will obtain CRISPR / cas9 technology patents with a wide range of uses Now, the University of California, Berkeley, will win another point from China Intellia therapeutics and CRISPR therapeutics announced on June 19 that they have obtained patents on CRISPR gene editing technology granted by the State Intellectual Property Office of China Intellia therapeutics and CRISPR therapeutics have announced that they have obtained patents on CRISPR gene editing technology granted by the State Intellectual Property Office of China The co founders of the two companies are Jennifer doudna, a biologist at the University of California, Berkeley, and Emmanuelle Carpentier, a French microbiologist In 2012, they first reported that CRISPR technology can accurately cut the DNA of bacteria (prokaryotic cells) in vitro According to the information released by the two companies, the patent granted in China covers the use of CRISPR / cas9 single guide gene editing technology to modify target DNA in cell and non cell environments, including more core modifications to vertebrate cells such as human or other mammalian cells, as well as the use of CRISPR technology to produce drugs for disease treatment In the United States, the patent for CRISPR in eukaryotic cells or in any cell nuclear species belongs to the broad Institute of Zhang Feng, a Chinese scientist In 2013, Zhang Feng's team reported the first CRISPR gene editing on human cells (eukaryotic cells) only about half a year away from the papers of dudena and Carpentier Due to the application of fast track, although the patent application time is several months later than that of UC Berkeley, in 2014, the Bode Research Institute was first granted CRISPR patent by the U.S patent and Trademark Office for editing eukaryotic cells The University of California, Berkeley's patent application for CRISPR to edit all types of cells, including bacteria, plants, animals and humans, has not been approved Therefore, in 2015, the University of California, Berkeley, applied for the intervention of the U.S patent and Trademark Office, saying that dudena and her partner, Carpentier, were the first discoverers of CRISPR technology The patent application on CRISPR conflicts with the existing patent of the Bode Research Institute, believing that the patent of the Bode Research Institute in 2014 is invalid One is the University of California, Berkeley, where dudana is located, and the other is the Bode institute where Zhang Feng is located The two sides have experienced fierce competition for CRISPR / cas9 patents in the United States Behind the competition are billions of dollars worth of gene editing market As a star technology in the field of life science, CRISPR can be used to knock out and add DNA fragments efficiently and simply, which has great academic and market value Zhang Feng is one of the founders of editas medicine, another CRISPR technology related company The patent dispute between the two sides involves a key technical dispute, that is, whether CRISPR technology is obvious from editing prokaryote to editing eukaryote According to dudana and UC Berkeley, Zhang Feng is just one of the followers of dudana's papers Only conventional technology is needed to apply CRISPR to mouse and human cells, which is based on the extension of their application in prokaryotic cells But the reason for the Research Institute of Bode is that dudena only predicted that CRISPR would be effective on human cells, and publicly expressed no confidence Zhang Feng's team took the lead in applying CRISPR to human cells, and it was a "qualitative" leap from applying it to prokaryotic cells to eukaryotic cells On February 15, 2017, the U.S Patent Office review and Appeal Board ruled on CRISPR's patent dispute case, and held that "using crispr-cas9 in all environments including prokaryotic cells or in vitro is not obvious to infer that this technology can also be used in eukaryotic cells" Zhang Feng's bode Research Institute reserved CRISPR obtained in 2014 The patent right does not conflict with the patent application of the University of California, Berkeley The University of California, Berkeley, is suing the U.S Court of Appeals for the federal circuit for an administrative action against the U.S Patent Office review and appeal board.
    This article is an English version of an article which is originally in the Chinese language on echemi.com and is provided for information purposes only. This website makes no representation or warranty of any kind, either expressed or implied, as to the accuracy, completeness ownership or reliability of the article or any translations thereof. If you have any concerns or complaints relating to the article, please send an email, providing a detailed description of the concern or complaint, to service@echemi.com. A staff member will contact you within 5 working days. Once verified, infringing content will be removed immediately.

    Contact Us

    The source of this page with content of products and services is from Internet, which doesn't represent ECHEMI's opinion. If you have any queries, please write to service@echemi.com. It will be replied within 5 days.

    Moreover, if you find any instances of plagiarism from the page, please send email to service@echemi.com with relevant evidence.