The University of California secured two patents in June covering CRISPR–Cas9 gene-editing technology. These are the first patents granted to the University on the technology that it asserts was developed by its researchers, although the impact of the patents is not yet clear. The first patent (US9994831) describes ways of modifying a single-stranded nucleic acid target, covering a relatively narrow area of CRISPR technology, one that is unlikely to have a major impact on the patent landscape. The second patent (US10000772; '772), assigned to the University of California, the University of Vienna and Emmanuelle Charpentier, covers the use of optimized guide RNAs to direct the CRISPR–Cas9 nuclease to the target DNA in eukaryotic cells, and could have broader significance. Those companies founded by University of California researchers—Intellia Therapeutics, CRISPR Therapeutics and Caribou Biosciences—issued a statement, claiming “that the patent...covers the use of CRISPR–Cas9 genome editing with the RNA guide formats that are widely used throughout the industry.” The value of the '772 patent, according to Zachary Silbersher, a patent lawyer at patent consultancy Markman Advisors, hinges on whether the University of California prevails in an ongoing battle with the Broad Institute. The dispute is over the same claims contained in the '722 patent related to key CRISPR–Cas9 technology in eukaryotes, which is where the principle commercial potential for CRISPR–Cas9 exists. The dispute arose in 2014 when the US Patent and Trademark Office granted the Broad and its partners, Harvard University and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, a set of patents for editing of eukaryotic genomes, which the University of California challenged. The case is currently at a federal appeals court, and a decision is anticipated in the second half of 2018. “If University of California loses that appeal, then the value of the '772 patent would drop significantly because it could be easily invalidated if they try to enforce it against alleged infringers,” says Silbersher.