It might be a good legal overview (I wouldn't know), but the scientific merit is overwhelmingly in Doudna's favor. The actual novelty and value of the method i

It might be a good legal overview (I wouldn't know), but the scientific merit is overwhelmingly in Doudna's favor. The actual novelty and value of the method is the ability to edit nucleotides, not whether it can be done in prokaryotes vs. eukaryotes. In the case where this was a known technique that had significant difficulties in translating to eukaryotic work, then the Broad Institute's work would be significant. That was not, however, the case. Very little needed to change, and the technique has been widely applicable. Just a quick look though Doudna's publications shows that this is an issue with a great deal of background work behind it, years of effort that fortuitously resulted in an incredible invention. Then, someone comes along, copies your work in some different bugs, and claims ownership. It's really no more complicated than that.