panel-8-gene-editing-and-advanced-therapies
21 May 2026VideosAmericasDavid Longmuir, Philip Ormonde Fitzpatrick | Danielle Burns, Philip Ormonde Fitzpatrick | Scott Douglas, Editas | Nicole Mastrangelo, The Broad Institute of MIT and Harvard

WATCH: Gene editing and advanced therapies—patent strategies for the next generation of precision medicine

David Longmuir and Danielle Burns, Principals at Philip Ormonde Fitzpatrick, discuss the gene editing IP landscape alongside Scott Douglas, Vice President of Intellectual Property at Editas, and Nicole Mastrangelo, IP Counsel at The Broad Institute of MIT and Harvard.The conversation tackles the current state of CRISPR patent disputes and their implications for commercialisation, alongside claiming strategies designed to protect emerging base and prime editing technologies. The panel considers how to differentiate innovations in such a heavily saturated space.Attention is also given to the growing use of click-wrap and labelling licenses for accessing CRISPR tools, examining compliance and enforceability. The session contrasts theoretical freedom-to-operate with practical freedom-to-action, offering licensing and indemnity strategies to manage exposure when clearing every patent risk isn't feasible.

Already registered?

Login to your account

To request a FREE 2-week trial subscription, please signup.
NOTE - this can take up to 48hrs to be approved.

Two Weeks Free Trial

For multi-user price options, or to check if your company has an existing subscription that we can add you to for FREE, please email Adrian Tapping at atapping@newtonmedia.co.uk


More on this story

Americas
10 July 2026   Harbour’s trial counsel shares the strategy behind the company’s $20m win, revealing how a highly technical patent dispute became a case about credibility as much as science.
Americas
9 July 2026   Separate lawsuits target Indian and Taiwanese pharma companies as Exelixis seeks to keep rival cabozantinib products off the US market until key patents expire.
Americas
2 July 2026   A federal court has ruled in a dispute between a clinical trial technology company and a psychedelic drug developer over allegations of trade secret misuse during a bidding process.