SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Broad Institute takes a hit in European CRISPR patent struggle
A decision from the European Patent Office (EPO) has put the Broad Institute in Cambridge, Massachusetts, on shaky ground with its intellectual property claims to the gene-editing tool CRISPR. EPO yesterday revoked a patent granted to the Broad for fundamental aspects of the technology, one of several of its patents facing opposition in Europe.
In the United States, the Broad has had better fortune. It has so far prevailed in a high-profile patent dispute with the University of California (UC), Berkeley. Last February, the U.S. Patent Trial and Appeal Board ruled that although a team led by UC Berkeley structural biologist Jennifer Doudna had first laid claim to the use of CRISPR to cut DNA in a test tube, the use of the method on human cells by molecular biologist Feng Zhang's team at the Broad was still an advance.
But in Europe, a dispute that has gotten much less attention could derail several key Broad patents. The patent just revoked was filed in December 2013, but to show that its claims predate competing publications and patent filings from UC and other groups, the Broad cites U.S. patent applications dating back to December 2012.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by pipedwho on Tuesday January 23 2018, @01:36AM (1 child)
The problem with all these patents is that the bar is far too low on that tiny bit of inventiveness / change that takes something that exists and adds something that is in parallel development by multiple entities that are working on the problem.
IMO, patents should be kept secret for at least 12 months on application. And if any other publications or patent applications appear detailing the same 'invention', the patent is effectively voided by being 'obvious to someone skilled in the art' or an inevitable evolution on a technique or technology. The reasoning here is that usually a public discussion or paper is released that gives everyone working in the field the same insight to 'advance' the state of the art. It is not useful to then treat the first to the post in the inevitable rush of applications to have a monopoly on an otherwise obvious and possibly fundamental implementation concept.
Patents are there to make sure things end up in the public domain and discoveries that might have otherwise never been disclosed, get disclosed. They aren't there to make money for people that game the system or apply for patents on things where the increment to the state of art is based on something that is otherwise clear to other researchers in the same field.
(Score: 3, Informative) by canopic jug on Tuesday January 23 2018, @06:25AM
It was revoked not just because of the specific patent being bad, but of a whole class of patents being inappropriate [techrights.org]. Several problems there include the EPO [techrights.org] management and the organization's way of bringing in money. Both prioritize quantity over quality. The EPO used to hire skilled patent examiners, yet they were forced by the management in directions which are harmful and ultimately unproductive. The trend there seems to be now to try to avoid keeping full-time staff by providing horrible stress and eliminating job security. Odds are now that any new application is handled by interns.
Money is not free speech. Elections should not be auctions.