See Cal's: Appeals board clears way for UC Berkeley to receive patent on CRISPR-Cas9 gene editing
"thereby moving the Doudna/Charpentier group’s application closer to issuance as a U.S. patent.
More particularly, the PTAB ruled that the use of CRISPR-Cas9 systems in eukaryotic cells, such as human cells, as claimed in the patents and applications filed by the Broad Institute of MIT and Harvard, is a separate invention from the general use of CRISPR-Cas9 gene-editing technology in any type of cell, as claimed in the pending U.S. patent application filed by Jennifer Doudna, Emmanuelle Charpentier and their research teams at UC Berkeley and the University of Vienna.
In its ruling, the PTAB justified its finding of “no interference in fact” by stating: “Broad has persuaded us that the parties claim patentably distinct subject matter.” As such, the patent board ultimately determined that they will “enter judgment of no interference-in-fact, which neither cancels nor finally refuses either parties’ claims” (emphasis added)." ...- see the full article.
And Daily Cal has:
Both parties in CRISPR-Cas9 technology lawsuit can maintain patents, board rules
But then see LA Times: UC Berkeley loses epic fight over patent for CRISPR gene-editing technique
Broad Institute wins bitter battle over CRISPR patents
Harvard and M.I.T. Scientists Win Gene-Editing Patent Fight - The New York Times
- Richard Blum (AGAIN!)
- Gareth Elliott
- George Kieffer
- Sherry Lansing (AGAIN!)
- Hadi Makarechian
- Eloy Ortiz Oakley
- John A. Pérez
- Richard Sherman
- Charlene Zettel
- Anguiano, Maria
- Park, Lark
- UC Regents Committees
- Staff Advisors, Faculty Reps, Designates
- Ex Officio UC Regents
- UC Alumni Regents
- Tauscher, Ellen
- Guber, H. Peter
- Paul Monge
- VACANT (by Lozano)
- VACANT ( by Pattiz)
- VACANT (by Reiss)
"If the University were a business, it would likely be the largest corporation in California."
"If The University Were A Business, It Would Likely Be The Largest Corporation In California"-Regents Minutes (2010)