Extremely broad claims surrounding Cas9 nucleases have the potential to stifle innovation in the field of genome editing.
This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution
Access Nature and 54 other Nature Portfolio journals
Get Nature+, our best-value online-access subscription
$29.99 per month
cancel any time
Subscribe to this journal
Receive 12 print issues and online access
$209.00 per year
only $17.42 per issue
Rent or buy this article
Get just this article for as long as you need it
Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout
Cong, L. et al. Science 339, 819–823 (2013).
Jinek, M. et al. Science 337, 816–821 (2012).
Taning, C.N., Van Eynde, B., Yu, N., Ma, S. & Smagghe, G. J. Insect Physiol. 98, 245–257 (2017).
Noman, A., Aqeel, M. & He, S. Front. Plant Sci. 7, 1740 (2016).
Komor, A.C., Badran, A.H. & Liu, D.R. Cell 168, 20–36 (2017).
Mougiakos, I., Bosma, E.F., de Vos, W.M., van Kranenburg, R. & van der Oost, J. Trends Biotechnol. 34, 575–587 (2016).
Broad, et al. Reply 5, Patent Interference No. 106,048 (2016).
Ran, F.A. et al. Nature 520, 186–191 (2015).
Judgment, Patent Interference No. 106,048 (2017).
Sanders, R. Berkeley News http://news.berkeley.edu/2017/02/15/berkeley-statement-regarding-patent-boards-decision-on-crispr-cas9-gene-editing-technology/ (15 February 2017).
Pollack, A. New York Times, B3 (16 February 2017).
Monsanto v. Syngenta 503 F.3d 1352, 1353 (2007).
Manual of Patent Examining Procedure, 9th edn. (2015).
Ariad Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Eli Lilly and Co., 598 F.3d 1336, 1341 (2010).
The Regents of the University of California v. Eli Lilly and Company, 119 F.3d 1559 (1997).
Levine, H.W. Nat. Biotechnol. 16, 87–88 (1998).
US Patent No. 8,697,359.
US Patent Application No. 13/842,859, claims modified 3 September 2015.
Burstein, D. et al. Nature 542, 237–241 (2017).
Guo, H.H., Choe, J. & Loeb, L.A. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 101, 9205–9210 (2004).
Hirano, H. et al. Cell 164, 950–961 (2016).
In re Wands, 858 F.2d 731, 737, 8 USPQ2d 1400, 1404 (1988).
Oral Argument Transcript, Patent Interference No. 106,048 (2016).
The authors are employees of Benson Hill Biosystems, which has filed intellectual property on its genome editing technologies.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Gray, B., Spruill, W. CRISPR–Cas9 claim sets and the potential to stifle innovation. Nat Biotechnol 35, 630–633 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1038/nbt.3913