Opinion: The CRISPR patent decision didn’t get the science right. That doesn’t mean it was wrong

The CRISPR patent decision illustrates a classic disconnect between the legal standards of patent law and the realities of scientific research.

The CRISPR patent dispute between the University of California, Berkeley, and the Broad Institute is finally over. As almost everyone following the case predicted, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed Monday the U.S. patent office’s decision that there was “no interference-in-fact” between UC Berkeley’s patent application and more than a dozen Broad patents. In plain English: Broad researcher Feng Zhang’s CRISPR patents were sufficiently inventive over the UC Berkeley’s patent applications with Jennifer Doudna and Emmanuelle Charpentier.

Many scientists disagree with the decision, believing that

You're reading a preview, sign up to read more.

More from STAT

STAT3 min readPolitics
Democrats Still Have Questions About Nancy Pelosi’s Drug Pricing Plan
Nancy Pelosi has spent the week pitching her drug pricing plan to Democrats — without actually showing Democrats her drug pricing plan.
STAT13 min readPolitics
With Ominous TV Spots And A Senior ‘Strike Force,’ AARP Launches An All-out Attack On Pharma
AARP’s white-haired “strike force,” as the organization calls them, is on the offensive like never before.
STAT5 min read
‘Please Know You’re Not Alone’: For Dementia Caregivers, A Place To Share With Strangers — And Be Honest
It was an indescribable relief to finally connect with someone who understood what, exactly, it was like.