CRISPR Patent Showdown: Nobel Winners Lose Again

A U. S. patent court has ruled once more against scientists who won a Nobel Prize for their work on CRISPR, the gene‑editing tool that lets researchers cut DNA like scissors. The decision pits Jennifer Doudna and Emmanuelle Charpentier against the Broad Institute, a joint venture of Harvard and MIT. The court said the Broad’s patents are valid. The universities involved are still proud of their other CRISPR patents—over 60 that belong to the University of California. They say this loss does not hurt their overall portfolio. The Broad, meanwhile, claims the ruling confirms its rights. CRISPR has huge promise. It can correct genetic errors that cause disease, and it is now in clinical trials. The technology was first described by Doudna and Charpentier back in 2012, earning them a Nobel Prize eight years later.The Broad filed for its own CRISPR patent in 2013 and got it in 2014. They focused on using the tool in eukaryotic cells—plants and animals. Doudna, Charpentier, and their universities challenged this patent in the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB). They argued they invented it first. In 2022 the PTAB said the Broad had the rights, because the challengers hadn’t shown they could use CRISPR in eukaryotic cells before. An appeals court sent the case back last year, claiming the PTAB misused patent law. The board reviewed the law again and still sided with the Broad. The case is known as Patent Interference No. 106, 115. Lawyers for the universities and the Broad are preparing for further steps. The dispute highlights how fast science moves and how legal battles can lag behind. It also shows that even Nobel laureates can lose in the patent arena.