What’s the fight about?

It’s a patent battle, set in the US, over a tool that can help edit DNA.

Edit DNA?

You heard me. We’re talking about the use of Crispr-Cas9, a technology used for editing genome. Experts say this can revolutionise molecular biology.

Interesting, who holds the patent for this?

Well, that’s a billion dollar question. Many billions, to be frank. As things stand now, the patent for this game-changing technology is under dispute. Two heavyweight organisations representing two scientists are staking claim for its ownership. And the battle — currently being fought at the the US Patent and Trademark Office — is getting only intense.

Now, please give me the cast and crew.

The warring parties are, Feng Zhang, a bioengineer at the Broad Institute, affiliated with MIT and Harvard University, and Jennifer Doudna of UC Berkeley. Both scientists claim the ownership of crucial components of Crispr.

The US patent authority is now examining who first invented a method to use Crispr-Cas9 to edit the genomes in higher organisms. Of course, Doudna filed her patent patent application on March 15, 2013, while Zhang filed it seven months later.

So it’s Doudna right?

I wish things were that simple. On March 16, 2013, a day after Doudna filed her application with some 155 claims on Crispr, the US moved to a new patent system in which ‘who filed first’ mattered, instead of ‘who invented it first’. The US changed the system to make it in sync with other developed countries, but it doesn’t work retrospectively.

So?

Before I answer that, let me tell you that Zhang’s October 2013 application got a speedier review and the patent office in 2014 issued him a Crispr patent covering claims about how one could apply it to plants and animal cells. This was contested by Doudna and UC. They are saying Zhang’s discoveries overlap with Doudna’ and hence not eligible for patent.

Do I smell a bias here?

You are not alone. Some activists doubt whether Zhang has received more importance over Doudna. But what’s more significant is how such legal disputes can hold a great technology from contributing to the well being of the society.

You’re right.

Experts term Crispr a biotech breakthrough, which helps scientists intervene in the genomes of life forms — be it a single cell organism, or plant and people — with far “greater precision” than has ever been possible. Which means, it offers scientists a find-and-replace option with the genome. And that makes anything possible — from designer babies to a world free of deadly diseases such as malaria, and fixes for even the worst forms of cancer, and so on.

Interesting!

And that’s why a few biotech institutions have invested millions on Crispr. More importantly, owning this patent is akin to winning a lottery for these organisations as patents when commercialised rake in pots of moolah. For instance, New York University mopped up over $1 billion from a patent relating to arthritis drug Remicade. So one can imagine how much Crispr, which many predict could win a Nobel Prize, could reap in licensing fees, royalties or sale.

Hence the intense legal battle.

Yes. Three firms use Crispr to develop medicines. Among them, Editas Medicine is co-founded by Zhang; CRISPR Therapeutics, is co-founded by Emmanuelle Charpentier, who is a key collaborator with Doudna. And the third, Intellia Therapeutics, is owned by Caribou Biosciences, funded by Doudna herself. Which means, with so much at stake, in all likelihood, the genome wrangle is not going to be resolved any time soon.

A weekly column that helps you ask the right questions

Related Topics