Wichy / Shutterstock.com
Philip Webber, partner at Dehns Patent & Trademark Attorneys, looks at the clarity of the language used in the Broad Institute of MIT and Harvard’s granted European patents for the CRISPR technology and questions whether it satisfies the European Patent Office’s requirements.
The ability of the CRISPR/Cas9 system to make precisely targeted mutations in genes, including human genes, has taken the biotech industry by storm. It has been described by some as being the most important development in biology since the discovery of the structure of DNA by Watson and Crick in 1953.
But whereas Watson and Crick famously celebrated their discovery in the traditional way in The Eagle pub in Cambridge, England, today’s inventors reach first for the telephone to call their patent attorneys.
So it was that Feng Zhang, a professor at the Broad Institute, and his group filed a number of US provisional applications to the CRISPR/Cas9 technology in 2012–2013 after realising the value of that technology for genome editing.
You need a subscription to continue reading this content.
Start a subscription today to access the LSIPR website.
To access the full archive, digital magazines and special reports you will need to take out a paid subscription.
News stories up to a week old and feature articles on the day of publication are accessible with a BASIC FREE ACCOUNT.
Register here for free content, or subscribe for access to archive.
If you have already subscribed please login.
If you have any technical issues please email tech support.
For access to the complete website, archive, and to receive print publications, choose '12 MONTH SUBSCRIPTION'. For a free, two-week trial with full access, select ‘TWO WEEK FREE TRIAL’; and for basic access to the latest news on the website and weekly email news alerts choose the 'BASIC FREE ACCOUNT' registration.
CRISPR complex, RNA, claims, tracrRNA, patent, genetics, CRISPR/ Cas-9, EPO,
