![]() “After an initial period, other companies may apply to license certain CRISPR intellectual property for use against genes of interest not being pursued by Editas.” “For human therapeutics, we concluded that exclusivity is necessary to driving the level of investment needed to develop the technology to the point that it is safe, effective, and capable of precise editing in specific cell types,” said Lee McGuire of the Broad Institute. (But unlike UC-B, the Broad Institute retains the right to consider proposals from other companies if, after an initial period, Editas is not pursuing work on a specific gene and does not plan to do so in the future.) Caribou has sublicensed the work out to Intellia Therapeutics of Cambridge, Mass.īroad Institute, affiliated with Harvard and MIT, has signed a similar deal with Editas Medicine. ![]() of Berkeley, founded by UC-B scientist and technique inventor, Jennifer Doudna. Here’s the problem, they say: UC-B has outsourced the commercialization of its invention to spinoff company Caribou Biosciences Inc. The proceedings aren’t entirely settled, because UC may appeal.)īut there are big - and less visible - behind-the-scenes implications for what actually gets done with these patents, according to Sherkow and Contreras. They had challenged Broad’s patents, saying the researchers had piggybacked on their discovery. That’s a loss for UC, considered the birthplace of the technique. The federal Patent and Trademark Office ruled that the Broad Institute of Cambridge, Mass., gets to retain more than a dozen patents to the tool. On Wednesday, the spotlight focused on the fierce combat between the two universities over the lucrative rights to the patents.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |