echemi logo
Product
  • Product
  • Supplier
  • Inquiry
    Home > Biochemistry News > Biotechnology News > The University of California will be granted a CRISPR patent.

    The University of California will be granted a CRISPR patent.

    • Last Update: 2020-08-05
    • Source: Internet
    • Author: User
    Search more information of high quality chemicals, good prices and reliable suppliers, visit www.echemi.com
    The intricate intellectual property landscape in the field of gene editing is back in the air.
    the CRISPR-Cas9 foundation patent (patent patent number US13/842,859) filed by the University of California in March 2013 will be granted, according to a document filed by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office on February 8.
    official patent certificates will be issued within approximately 6 to 8 weeks.
    "this authorized method claims protection is quite large, protonuclear and eukaryokaritas, both in vitro are included."
    " long-term concern about the progress of CRISPR patent, Beijing Xinhui Yongguang Intellectual Property Agent Co., Ltd. patent agent Zhu Xuexuan told Science and Technology Daily, "This patent authorization is actually only a matter of time, after all, Dudner team is the first to report crispR for gene editing, innovation is not controversial."
    " years of CRISPR patent contention swelled between the Boulder Institute's Zhang Feng team and UC Berkeley's Dudner team.
    was the first patent filed by the University of California, Berkeley, and the Broad Institute obtained a patent for CRISPR's application in the eukaryoeucity via fast-track.
    , so, Dudner believes they invented the technology before the Broad Institute, and proposed a "conflicting review" procedure to reject the Broad Institute's patent.
    February 2017, the U.S. Patent Trial and Appeals Commission announced that the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office granted the Broad Institute a patent for CRISPR editing the emanal genome without interfering with the University of California's patents.
    last September, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ruled to uphold the U.S. Patent Trial and Appeals Commission's decision. According to
    Zhu Xuexuan, the battle for CRISPR patents is about who owns the patents for the technology used in mammalian cells.
    " Dudner had a metaphor before, Zhang Feng wanted to protect the green tennis ball, she wanted to protect all tennis, based on the choice of invention of this particular type of invention of the licensing conditions, the United States Patent and Trademark Office believes that the two patents, even if technically related, in the sense of patent law can be independently authorized.
    ", "Since the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office and the court system ruled that Zhang Feng and Dudner's patents are independent of each other, I think the CRISPR patent war in the United States is over, and the two sides have to consider how to cooperate since then."
    ," Zhu said.
    in fact, the Broad Institute has shown initial willingness to cooperate after six years of litigation that has cost tens of millions of dollars. David Cameron, a spokesman for the
    Institute, said the new patent licensing decision "will not in any way affect CRISPR patents held by the Broad Institute, the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and Harvard University."
    , David said, "We still believe that an agreement with the University of California is the best way to do that for the whole field."
    therefore, for more than six years we have sought the University of California to join several times, including direct cooperation and through the patent pool.
    these initiatives begin before the University of California has granted exclusive, full commercial licensing of the relevant intellectual property rights, and we will continue to seek cooperation.
    "Even so, the competition around its patents will continue for a long time because of the amazing value the technology brings."
    "It is normal that some of Zhang Feng's patents have been challenged in Europe because other teams have applied almost simultaneously."
    , " zhu said.
    also argue that CRISPR technology is expected to win the Nobel Prize, only because it is not possible to judge the true ownership of patents, the award is not able to judge the nominee, it is reported that the University of Dusseldorf in Germany historian Nissen Hansen believes that, according to historical experience, the Nobel Committee has always been not influenced by external causes, and therefore will not be affected by the patent competition.
    CRISPR patent dispute two years ago, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office held a hearing at its headquarters in the largest technology patent dispute in decades.
    the invention of the controversy was the gene-editing technology CRISPR.
    it could mean millions or even billions of dollars in benefits for the winning party.
    media has a lot of coverage of CRISPR, which has the potential to bring life-saving treatments, new genetically modified crops, new methods of mosquito control, and so on.
    it doesn't seem like an exaggeration to say that CRISPR can change the world.
    any company that wants to use CRISPR technology will need authorization from the winner of the patent dispute.
    are both universities, affiliated with the Broad Institute at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and Harvard, and the Broad Institute at the University of California, Berkeley.
    two opposing teams of scientists who brought in lawyers to fight the case, both claiming to have invented the CRISPR technology first.
    team from Berkeley first published the results and filed a patent application, but the Broad Institute's team later won by the patent office with a number of complex procedural rules.
    in general, a patent dispute like this does nare not go to the point where hearings are needed, and the two sides may reach a settlement before they can raise their legal fees.
    but this patent battle continues to ferment and intensify.
    like much of the research work at universities, the Broad Institute and the CRISPR study at the University of California, Berkeley, are funded by government funding, but now the two sides are at loggerheads over the fact that they can authorise to private companies and make substantial amounts of money.
    biotech patents are not always a big deal for granted (i.e., a lucrative deal), universities and colleges don't always profit from government-funded research projects, and discoveries from natural phenomena are not allowed to apply for patents in the first place.
    but in the 1970s things changed.
    scientists from Stanford and the University of California, San Francisco, have developed recombinant DNA technology that opens the door to various forms of genetic modification.
    , the universities patented their invention and licensed it to Genentech, a start-up that became the first big success in biotechnology.
    Stanford University and the University of California, San Francisco, also paid off, earning $255 million by licensing patents to recombine DNA.
    patent realisation is a long story of recombining DNA than just a laboratory technique; it also has a business opportunity that can pay off handsomely.
    the story of the patent realization begins with frogs.
    1974, Stanley Cohen of Stanford University and Herbert Boyer of the University of California, San Francisco, announced that they had successfully stitched together genetic fragments from frogs into E. coli.
    frogs may be of interest only to scientists, but as the New York Times speculated in a subsequent report, if scientists can stitch human genes into bacteria, they could turn E. coli into a microbial factory that produces human proteins, such as insulin.
    at the time, diabetics had to use insulin from pigs or cattle.
    recombinant DNA opens the door for scientists to repair DNA.
    today, CRISPR is the technical successor to recombinant DNA, which allows scientists to edit genes with greater precision.
    recombinant DNA has laid the groundwork for CRISPR in the scientific world, and the patent story of recombinant DNA has set the stage for crispR's high-stakes patent dispute.
    past, scientists have not been used to considering patenting their research.
    professors of chemistry and physics at universities may occasionally patent their own chemical synthesis methods or processes, but basic research in biology has nothing to do with patents.
    , after all, Cohen and Boyer are not looking for a cure for diabetes, they're just studying how bacteria incorporate exogenous DNA fragments into their genomes.
    just, as scientists figure out how to transform the DNA of living organisms, they have learned how to manipulate new production processes in bacteria to make insulin and other drugs.
    so far, basic biology has a visible use in the real world.
    CRISPR is a reasonable extension of these changes.
    when microbiologists were studying an obscure part of the bacterial evolutionary tree, they discovered CRISPR.
    when scientists discovered that CRISPR could locate specific fragments of DNA with great precision, they realized it could be used for gene editing.
    1974, Stanford's Remeth struggled to convince Cohen and Boyer that their research could be patented.
    Boyer had thought that only the federal government could apply for a patent to recombine DNA because their research was funded by the National Institutes of Health.
    in fact, the rules of those government-funded research work applied for patents also varied from agency to agency.
    even the Institute of Health, they have different intellectual property agreements with different universities.
    Stanford University filed a patent petition for the study, which Cohen joined in - he had stated in advance that he could pass on the proceeds from the patent to Stanford University to avoid being tainted by the pursuit of financial interests.
    later, the University of California, San Francisco, where Boyer works, filed a patent application for recombined DNA.
    (the patent requires a joint application by two schools).
    If Stanford's patent office is unusually positive, the University of California side is unusually negative.
    the university's patent management system is a bit stretched, and the environment there is ultraliberal, and they find it unseemly to profit from academic discovery.
    according to Hughes's book, the University of California doesn't even want to pay half of its application fee.
    , however, the University of California also signed the application after Stanford agreed to pay all the fees.
    Stanford University completed all the patent paperwork and filed an application in 1974.
    an opportunity to make it possible for a patent to be realized, and we wonder if the patent application will pass.
    at the time, General Electric was pushing for a patent for a genetically modified bacteria that can break down crude oil.
    However, the law states that living organisms cannot be patented.
    the fact that the boundaries of what is natural and what is artificial are not clear when biologists have just entered the patent game, what can be patented and what cannot be patented.
    1980, things became clearer.
    in Diamond v. Chakrabarty, the U.S. Supreme Court voted 5 to 4 to make the petroleum-decomposing genetically modified bacteria patentable and applicable to all gmoids.
    ruling gives the green light to many biological-related patents under pressure from the patent office, including the recombinant DNA of Cohen and Boyer.
    , Boyer had co-founded Genetek, a company that made clear its desire to use recombinant DNA to make human drugs.
    at first, Boyer may not have been keen on patents, but now he's used to one foot into Genetek's business and the other is still in academia.
    , it is now common for university professors to start biotech companies based on their own research results - in fact, there are at least three start-ups behind the scientists vying for CRISPR patents - which was almost unheard of at the time.
    1980, Genentech raised $35 million through an IPO.
    is an eye-popping number for a company whose technology has not yet been validated.
    But it also creates the conditions for future biotech companies.
    this year, two CRISPR start-ups completed $94 million and $108 million ipos, respectively.
    , Genetek, tried unsuccessfully to obtain exclusive patents for recombinant DNA from Stanford University and the University of California.
    two universities decided to license the technology to a non-exclusive basis, meaning that any company can use it for a fee that is not too large.
    for a wide range of biotechnology patents, this licensing model is now considered the gold standard. As a result of
    story, we all know that Genentech has partnered with eli Lilly, a pharmaceutical company, to produce medicinal insulin.
    by the time the recombinant DNA patent expired in 1997, Stanford University and the University of California had already made $255 million by licensing Genentech and other companies. the story of the
    patent is not always happy and happy Patent story is not always happy.
    , the company became embroiled in dozens of intellectual property disputes, several of them at the University of California, after it learned that the patents could involve huge fame and loss.
    Genetek has been licensed to use recombinant DNA, and the company's scientists have made patentable new research in the process of developing insulin, but these patents have also become controversial issues.
    new patents for insulin development, Genetek, Lilly and California University.
    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.