CRISPR Patent Showdown: Nobel Winners Lose Again

A U.S. patent court has once again ruled against Nobel laureates Jennifer Doudna and Emmanuelle Charpentier in a dispute over the gene‑editing technology CRISPR. The decision affirms that patents held by the Broad Institute—a joint venture of Harvard and MIT—are valid.

Key Takeaways

• Broad Institute wins: The court confirmed the Broad’s patents, reinforcing its legal standing in CRISPR technology.
• Universities remain confident: Despite the setback, universities maintain pride in their own portfolio of over 60 CRISPR patents linked to the University of California, asserting that this loss does not dent their overall holdings.
• CRISPR’s promise: The technology, capable of correcting genetic errors and already in clinical trials, was first detailed by Doudna and Charpentier in 2012 and earned them a Nobel Prize eight years later.

Timeline of Events

1. 2013–2014: The Broad files and secures a CRISPR patent focused on use in eukaryotic cells (plants and animals).
2. 2020: Doudna, Charpentier, and their universities challenge the patent before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB), claiming prior invention.
3. 2022: PTAB sides with the Broad, citing lack of evidence for earlier eukaryotic‑cell use by challengers.
4. 2023: An appeals court sends the case back, alleging PTAB misuse of patent law.
5. 2024: The board reviews the law again and still upholds the Broad’s rights.

Current Status

The case, known as Patent Interference No. 106, 115, remains active with lawyers from both sides preparing for further legal steps.

Broader Implications

• Science vs. Law: The dispute underscores the speed at which scientific innovation can outpace legal frameworks.
• Nobel laureates in litigation: Even award-winning scientists are not immune to the rigors of patent law.