Abstract
The U.S. Patent & Trademark Office (USPTO) released a long-awaited decision in the contentious patent battle over CRISPR/Cas9 gene-editing technology last week. Broad Institute of Harvard University and MIT called the outcome a victory, while the University of California, Berkeley, sent a different message: We’re just getting started. “It is definitely a big win for Broad, but I wouldn’t pin it as a total loss for Berkeley,” says Jacob Sherkow of the New York Law School, who has been tracking the case closely. Berkeley filed its CRISPR patent in 2012, ahead of Broad. But Broad expedited its own patent’s review process for a fee and got it approved first, spurring Berkeley to initiate a legal proceeding called a patent interference to determine if Broad’s patent covered the same invention as Berkeley’s. On Feb. 15, judges at USPTO declared “that there is no interference-in-fact” between the two parties, meaning that Broad’s
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
