Intellectual Property,
Government
Apr. 19, 2017
Who should own CRISPR? Nobody
A dispute over who controls the rights to this powerful gene-editing technology shows how the Bayh-Dole Act is no longer about the public good -- but revenue.
Michael B. Eisen
Howard Hughes Medical Institute Investigator and Professor of Genetics, Genomics and Development
UC Berekeley
Last month a panel of judges from the U.S. Patent Trial and Appeal Board issued a ruling in a bitter dispute between the University of California and the Broad Institute of Cambridge, Mass., over who will control the rights to a new and powerful technique for modifying the genetic code of animals and plants.
The University of California argued that the invention was theirs based on the 2012 demonstration by researchers in the Berkeley lab of Jennifer Doudna that components of a bacte...
For only $95 a month (the price of 2 article purchases)
Receive unlimited article access and full access to our archives,
Daily Appellate Report, award winning columns, and our
Verdicts and Settlements.
Or
$795 for an entire year!
Or access this article for $45
(Purchase provides 7-day access to this article. Printing, posting or downloading is not allowed.)
Already a subscriber?
Sign In