4 ms·

Required reading if you want to really dig on this - https://acts.uspto.gov/ifiling/PublicView.jsp?identifier=106048&identifier2=null&tabSel=4&action=fileconten

• CRISPR 9y ago
  Also - see here https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/04-1350.ZS.html https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/04-1350.ZS.html and here https://www.pillsburylaw.com/images/content/6/5/v2/65484/When-Is-An-Invention-That-Was-Obvious-To-Try-Nevertheless-Nonobv.pdf https://www.pillsburylaw.com/images/content/6/5/v2/65484/Whe... Would definitely read the Transcript and Decision on Motions thoroughly from the prior posted link. The weight given to contemporaneous statements regarding "likelihood of success" is paramount. Bottom line - UC muffed the punt, imho, and their counsel didn't make things any better by taking the tack they did. Broad/Zhang drew a straight bead on the commercial IP from the get go and outmaneuvered Doudna/UC from what I can tell. Appellate court could certainly disagree, however, I believe they have a tough hill to climb in light of the record. From a scientific discovery perspective, it seems Doudna/Charpentier are likely to garner the lion's share of credit and accolades, but from a commercial perspective, I do believe Broad will come out on top. Doudna/UC is in a tough spot to claim that it was confident that CRISPR would work in eurkaryotic environments, and Broad had the jump with a better lab setup (and Doudna being crystallography focused). I also believe there is a bit of high level geo-politics at play here considering the Max Plank Institute and (Berlin) Univ. Vienna's involvement with the UC claim.