Nobel Prize winners face new loss in bid for US CRISPR patents

By Blake Brittain

March 27 (Reuters) - A U.S. Patent Office tribunal has ruled against Nobel Prize-winning scientists Jennifer Doudna and Emmanuelle Charpentier for a second time in their dispute with the Broad Institute, a joint venture of Harvard University and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, over patent rights to foundational CRISPR gene-editing technology.

The office's Patent Trial and Appeal Board determined on Thursday that Broad Institute scientists conceived the technology before Doudna, Charpentier and their respective schools the University of California and the University of Vienna.

The University of California said in a statement that it was disappointed by the decision, but that it does not affect the school's more than 60 other CRISPR-related U.S. patents. Spokespeople for the University of Vienna did not immediately respond to a request for comment on Friday.

The Broad Institute said in a statement that the ruling "once again confirmed Broad’s patents were properly issued."

CRISPR enables scientists to use biological "scissors" to edit DNA. The technology is being tested in clinical trials to help cure diseases caused by genetic mutations and abnormalities.

Doudna and Charpentier were the first to seek a CRISPR patent in 2012. They shared the Nobel Prize in Chemistry for their CRISPR work eight years later.

The Broad Institute applied for its own patent covering the use of CRISPR in "eukaryotic" plant or animal cells in 2013 and received the patent in 2014. Doudna, Charpentier and their universities challenged the institute at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, arguing they came up with the same invention first.

The board determined in 2022 that the Broad Institute was entitled to the patent rights, finding that the challengers had not created CRISPR technology that works with eukaryotic cells before the institute invented it. A U.S. appeals court sent the case back last year, finding the board had misapplied federal law on patent conception.

The board said on Thursday after reapplying the law that the Broad Institute had still conceived the technology first.

The case is Patent Trial and Appeal Board, Patent Interference No. 106,115.

For the universities: Jeff Lamken of MoloLamken

For the Broad Institute: Raymond Nimrod of Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan

Read more:

Breakthrough gene-editing technology belongs to Harvard, MIT -U.S. tribunal

Nobel Prize winners convince court to revive CRISPR patent dispute