This is already done, and currently disputed patent is not as important as the article claims. Quoting from http://www.ipscell.com/2016/01/patent-expert-weighs-

This is already done, and currently disputed patent is not as important as the article claims. Quoting from http://www.ipscell.com/2016/01/patent-expert-weighs-in-on-crispr-dispute-between-uc-broad/ http://www.ipscell.com/2016/01/patent-expert-weighs-in-on-cr... Q. Are there elements to this patent situation that most people are overlooking? A. Probably the most important thing that people are overlooking is the scope of the claimed subject material of the Doudna patent application (and also the Zhang patents in question); only Cas9 is claimed. The claims do not cover other nucleases that could work with CRISPR (such as Zhang’s recently published Cpf1, which is "smaller and easier to program than Cas9") and thus would not exclude someone from using other nucleases.