NEW YORK — Earlier this month, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office ruled that CRISPR patents key to developing human therapies belong to the Broad Institute of MIT and Harvard, ending the latest chapter in a bitter seven-year battle between the Broad and the home institutions of Jennifer Doudna and Emmanuelle Charpentier — the two scientists who won the Nobel Prize for creating the revolutionary gene-editing technology.
But for all the acrimony exchanged and millions of dollars of legal fees spent by the academic institutions where CRISPR was first invented, the companies that are actually turning the technology into medicines are plowing through the fallout of the decision with little more than a collective shrug.
“I think it’s really a topic for people interested in IP law,” Lawrence Klein, the chief operating officer of CRISPR Therapeutics said Thursday during the 2022 STAT Breakthrough Science Summit in New York City.
This article is exclusive to STAT+ subscribers
Unlock this article — plus daily coverage and analysis of the biotech sector — by subscribing to STAT+.
Already have an account? Log in
About the Author Reprints
To submit a correction request, please visit our Contact Us page.
