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

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 options

Buy article

Get time limited or full article access on ReadCube.

$32.00

All prices are NET prices.

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).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

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

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

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

    CAS  Article  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).

    CAS  Article  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).

    CAS  Article  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).

    CAS  Article  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).

    CAS  Article  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).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

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

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

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

    CAS  Article  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

Authors

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

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