- Select a language for the TTS:
- UK English Female
- UK English Male
- US English Female
- US English Male
- Australian Female
- Australian Male
- Language selected: (auto detect) - EN
Play all audios:
NEW YORK — Earlier this month, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office ruled that CRISPR patents key to developing human therapies belong to the Broad Institute of MIT and Harvard, ending the
latest chapter in a bitter seven-year battle between the Broad and the home institutions of Jennifer Doudna and Emmanuelle Charpentier — the two scientists who won the Nobel Prize for
creating the revolutionary gene-editing technology. But for all the acrimony exchanged and millions of dollars of legal fees spent by the academic institutions where CRISPR was first
invented, the companies that are actually turning the technology into medicines are plowing through the fallout of the decision with little more than a collective shrug. “I think it’s really
a topic for people interested in IP law,” Lawrence Klein, the chief operating officer of CRISPR Therapeutics said Thursday during the 2022 STAT Breakthrough Science Summit in New York City.
STAT+ Exclusive Story Already have an account? Log in THIS ARTICLE IS EXCLUSIVE TO STAT+ SUBSCRIBERS UNLOCK THIS ARTICLE — PLUS DAILY COVERAGE AND ANALYSIS OF THE BIOTECH SECTOR — BY
SUBSCRIBING TO STAT+. Already have an account? Log in Individual plans Group plans View All Plans To read the rest of this story subscribe to STAT+. Subscribe
