The CRISPR-Cas9 Quarrel

In mid-2016, the Broad Institute and the University of California, Berkeley were in the middle of a contentious patent dispute over which entity controlled a breakthrough gene editing technology called CRISPR-Cas9. With CRISPR-Cas9, scientists might soon be able to cure previously incurable genetic diseases such as sickle cell anemia and cystic fibrosis, among many others. The dispute had escalated to the point where the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) declared a patent interference and began a process to determine the intellectual property's (IP) rightful owner. The USPTO's decision would not only have serious commercial implications-the technology would be immensely important to biotechnology firms looking to develop gene therapy products, and was therefore sure to generate strong revenues for whichever entity owned the IP-but would also essentially award scientific credit for this technology and thus impact the reputations of the scientists on both sides who had worked so hard to discover the tool. This case touches upon a number of other key issues too: the ethical implications of gene editing; the state of IP and licensing in the biotechnology industry; the impact of lawsuits on developing new technologies and companies; and who should own platform technologies built, at least in part, by the research of multiple parties and government funding.