In a significant legal development with profound implications for the future of genetic engineering, a U.S. federal appeals court has agreed to revisit a high-stakes patent battle over CRISPR-Cas9 gene-editing technology. This decision follows a petition spearheaded by Nobel Prize-winning scientists Jennifer Doudna and Emmanuelle Charpentier, who are seeking to reclaim intellectual property rights over one of the most groundbreaking discoveries in modern biology.
The CRISPR Breakthrough
CRISPR-Cas9, a revolutionary tool that enables precise editing of DNA, has transformed the field of genetics since its development in the early 2010s. The technology allows scientists to alter genes with unprecedented ease and accuracy, offering promise in treating genetic diseases, improving crops, and even combating climate change. In 2020, Doudna and Charpentier were awarded the Nobel Prize in Chemistry for their pioneering work on CRISPR.
A Complex Legal Landscape
The CRISPR patent battle has pitted the University of California, Berkeley—where Doudna conducted much of her research—against the Broad Institute of MIT and Harvard. In 2022, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) ruled in favor of the Broad Institute, recognizing its claim over the use of CRISPR in eukaryotic cells, including human cells.
UC Berkeley had earlier filed for the foundational CRISPR patent, but the Broad Institute’s expedited filing and specific focus on eukaryotic applications earned it a separate, and so far, legally upheld claim. The dispute centers on whether the Broad’s innovations were obvious extensions of the original CRISPR work or merited independent patent protection.
The Revival of the Case
In a rare move, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has agreed to review the previous ruling, citing newly presented arguments and scientific evidence by the UC Berkeley team and their legal representatives. Doudna and her colleagues argue that the Broad Institute’s patents should be invalidated on the grounds that the underlying concept of CRISPR in eukaryotic cells was an “obvious” step from their foundational research.
“The decision to revisit the case acknowledges the evolving understanding of CRISPR’s development and the need to fairly assign credit for its invention,” said a UC Berkeley spokesperson.
Legal analysts believe that the court’s decision could reshape the landscape of biotechnology patents. “This is not just about who owns CRISPR,” said Lisa Morgan, a biotech patent attorney in Washington. “It’s about how intellectual property is awarded in rapidly advancing scientific fields.”
Scientific and Commercial Stakes
The implications of the patent dispute are enormous. CRISPR-based therapies are currently in clinical trials for conditions such as sickle cell anemia, cancer, and blindness. With billions of dollars in potential revenue at stake, the ownership of key CRISPR patents determines who can license the technology and at what cost.
The legal battle has also sparked concern within the scientific community over how intellectual property law intersects with collaborative research and open science. Many researchers argue that patent disputes could stifle innovation and slow the development of life-saving treatments.
What’s Next?
The appeals court is expected to hear oral arguments later this year, with a decision anticipated in early 2026. Until then, the scientific community, biotech firms, and investors will be closely watching the proceedings.
As the legal saga unfolds, the core of the dispute remains a fundamental question about innovation in science: Who truly owns a discovery when multiple researchers contribute to a single transformative breakthrough?