Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

Law, history and lessons in the CRISPR patent conflict

Predicting the outcome of the ongoing patent disputes surrounding genome-editing technology is equal parts patent analysis and history.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Access options

Buy article

Get time limited or full article access on ReadCube.

$32.00

All prices are NET prices.

References

  1. Jinek, M. et al. Science 337, 816–821 (2012).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Jinek, M. et al. US Patent Application No. PCT/US2013/032589 (2013).

  3. Cong, L. et al. Science 339, 819–823 (2013).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Zhang, F. US Patent No. 8,697,359 (2014).

  5. Miller, J.C., Rebar, E.J. & Zhang, S.H. US Patent Application No. 2014/0336133 (2014).

  6. 35 USC § 135 (2010).

  7. Madey v. Duke University, 357 F.3d 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2002).

  8. 35 USC § 271(e) (2012).

  9. 35 USC § 103 (2010).

  10. Feldman, M.P. et al. Intellectual Property Management in Health and Agricultural Innovation: A Handbook of Best Practices (eds. Krattiger, A. et al.) 1797–1807 (MIHR, Oxford, 2007).

    Google Scholar 

  11. Rojahn, S.Y. Broad Institute gets patent on revolutionary gene-editing method. MIT Technology Review http://www.technologyreview.com/view/526726/broad-institute-gets-patent-on-revolutionary-gene-editing-method/ (2014).

    Google Scholar 

  12. Fore, J. Jr., Wiechers, I.R. & Cook-Deegan, R. J. Biomed. Discov. Collab. 1, 7 (2006).

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The author would like to thank Christopher Weyant for invaluable contributions to this paper.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jacob S Sherkow.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The author declares no competing financial interests.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Sherkow, J. Law, history and lessons in the CRISPR patent conflict. Nat Biotechnol 33, 256–257 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1038/nbt.3160

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/nbt.3160

This article is cited by

Search

Quick links

Nature Briefing

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

Get the most important science stories of the day, free in your inbox. Sign up for Nature Briefing