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.

CRISPR–Cas9 claim sets and the potential to stifle innovation

Nature Biotechnology volume 35, pages 630–633 (2017)Cite this article

Subjects

Extremely broad claims surrounding Cas9 nucleases have the potential to stifle innovation in the field of genome editing.

Genome editing technologies have quickly been recognized and adopted for their potential to revolutionize biotech. Most recently, CRISPR nucleases have been widely and rapidly embraced for experiments in genome editing. By far the most widely used CRISPR nuclease is the Cas9 enzyme from Streptococcus pyogenes (SpCas9). Uncertainty about the intellectual property landscape surrounding SpCas9, and Cas9 proteins more generally, presents a barrier to entry for researchers and technology developers wishing to explore Cas9-mediated genome editing in their experimental systems of choice. Here we describe the broad claims surrounding Cas9 enzymes that have been granted or are under examination and present an argument based on Federal Circuit case law that these claims are improperly broad, potentially limiting innovation in the field of genome editing.

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

Access options

Rent or buy this article

Get just this article for as long as you need it

$39.95

Learn more

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

Figure 1: Schematic overview of Cas9-mediated genome editing.
Figure 2: Percent identities that BLAST hits share with SpCas9.

References

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

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Taning, C.N., Van Eynde, B., Yu, N., Ma, S. & Smagghe, G. J. Insect Physiol. 98, 245–257 (2017).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Noman, A., Aqeel, M. & He, S. Front. Plant Sci. 7, 1740 (2016).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Komor, A.C., Badran, A.H. & Liu, D.R. Cell 168, 20–36 (2017).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Mougiakos, I., Bosma, E.F., de Vos, W.M., van Kranenburg, R. & van der Oost, J. Trends Biotechnol. 34, 575–587 (2016).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Broad, et al. Reply 5, Patent Interference No. 106,048 (2016).

  8. Ran, F.A. et al. Nature 520, 186–191 (2015).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Judgment, Patent Interference No. 106,048 (2017).

  10. 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).

  11. Pollack, A. New York Times, B3 (16 February 2017).

  12. Monsanto v. Syngenta 503 F.3d 1352, 1353 (2007).

  13. Manual of Patent Examining Procedure, 9th edn. (2015).

  14. Ariad Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Eli Lilly and Co., 598 F.3d 1336, 1341 (2010).

  15. The Regents of the University of California v. Eli Lilly and Company, 119 F.3d 1559 (1997).

  16. Levine, H.W. Nat. Biotechnol. 16, 87–88 (1998).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. US Patent No. 8,697,359.

  18. US Patent Application No. 13/842,859, claims modified 3 September 2015.

  19. Burstein, D. et al. Nature 542, 237–241 (2017).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Guo, H.H., Choe, J. & Loeb, L.A. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 101, 9205–9210 (2004).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Hirano, H. et al. Cell 164, 950–961 (2016).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. In re Wands, 858 F.2d 731, 737, 8 USPQ2d 1400, 1404 (1988).

  23. Oral Argument Transcript, Patent Interference No. 106,048 (2016).

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Benjamin N. Gray and W. Murray Spruill are at Benson Hill Biosystems, Durham, North Carolina, USA.,

    Benjamin N Gray & W Murray Spruill

Authors
  1. Benjamin N Gray
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. W Murray Spruill
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to W Murray Spruill.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors are employees of Benson Hill Biosystems, which has filed intellectual property on its genome editing technologies.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

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

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/nbt.3913

Search

Advanced search

Quick links

Nature Briefing: Translational Research

Sign up for the Nature Briefing: Translational Research newsletter — top stories in biotechnology, drug discovery and pharma.

Get what matters in translational research, free to your inbox weekly. Sign up for Nature Briefing: Translational Research