Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

CRISPR–Cas9 claim sets and the potential to stifle innovation

  • Patents
  • Published:

From Nature Biotechnology

View current issue Submit your manuscript

Extremely broad claims surrounding Cas9 nucleases have the potential to stifle innovation in the field of genome editing.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Figure 1: Schematic overview of Cas9-mediated genome editing.
Figure 2: Percent identities that BLAST hits share with SpCas9.

References

  1. Cong, L. et al. Science 339, 819–823 (2013).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Jinek, M. et al. Science 337, 816–821 (2012).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Taning, C.N., Van Eynde, B., Yu, N., Ma, S. & Smagghe, G. J. Insect Physiol. 98, 245–257 (2017).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Noman, A., Aqeel, M. & He, S. Front. Plant Sci. 7, 1740 (2016).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Komor, A.C., Badran, A.H. & Liu, D.R. Cell 168, 20–36 (2017).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Mougiakos, I., Bosma, E.F., de Vos, W.M., van Kranenburg, R. & van der Oost, J. Trends Biotechnol. 34, 575–587 (2016).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Broad, et al. Reply 5, Patent Interference No. 106,048 (2016).

  8. Ran, F.A. et al. Nature 520, 186–191 (2015).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Judgment, Patent Interference No. 106,048 (2017).

  10. Sanders, R. Berkeley News http://news.berkeley.edu/2017/02/15/berkeley-statement-regarding-patent-boards-decision-on-crispr-cas9-gene-editing-technology/ (15 February 2017).

  11. Pollack, A. New York Times, B3 (16 February 2017).

  12. Monsanto v. Syngenta 503 F.3d 1352, 1353 (2007).

  13. Manual of Patent Examining Procedure, 9th edn. (2015).

  14. Ariad Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Eli Lilly and Co., 598 F.3d 1336, 1341 (2010).

  15. The Regents of the University of California v. Eli Lilly and Company, 119 F.3d 1559 (1997).

  16. Levine, H.W. Nat. Biotechnol. 16, 87–88 (1998).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. US Patent No. 8,697,359.

  18. US Patent Application No. 13/842,859, claims modified 3 September 2015.

  19. Burstein, D. et al. Nature 542, 237–241 (2017).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Guo, H.H., Choe, J. & Loeb, L.A. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 101, 9205–9210 (2004).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Hirano, H. et al. Cell 164, 950–961 (2016).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. In re Wands, 858 F.2d 731, 737, 8 USPQ2d 1400, 1404 (1988).

  23. Oral Argument Transcript, Patent Interference No. 106,048 (2016).

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Benjamin N. Gray and W. Murray Spruill are at Benson Hill Biosystems, Durham, North Carolina, USA.,

    Benjamin N Gray & W Murray Spruill

Authors
  1. Benjamin N Gray
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. W Murray Spruill
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to W Murray Spruill.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors are employees of Benson Hill Biosystems, which has filed intellectual property on its genome editing technologies.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Gray, B., Spruill, W. CRISPR–Cas9 claim sets and the potential to stifle innovation. Nat Biotechnol 35, 630–633 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1038/nbt.3913

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/nbt.3913

  • Springer Nature America, Inc.

Search

Navigation