CRISPR Gene Editing Patent Dispute: The Fierce Battle Behind Scientific Innovation

"Who has the right to cut genes first?" At the heart of the most heated debate in biotechnology, CRISPR is the focal point.

Hello, if you've been following science news lately, you've probably heard of CRISPR. Initially, I thought it was just a technical debate among scientists, but it turns out to be a massive patent battle that could change the entire global biotechnology industry. A few days ago, I heard someone in a community say, "If you know who first used CRISPR, you can predict the direction of vaccine stocks," and I became deeply immersed in this issue. Today, I’ll break down the core of this controversy for you.

Table of Contents

What is CRISPR Technology? Who Developed It First: The Invention Origin Dispute The Course of the Patent War Impact on the Biotechnology Industry Significance of the Verdict and Future Issues Ethical Considerations and the Future of the Technology

What is CRISPR Technology?

CRISPR is a revolutionary gene-editing technology known as the “gene scissors.” Its full name, ‘Clustered Regularly Interspaced Short Palindromic Repeats,’ refers to a biological tool that allows precise cutting or replacement of specific genes. The biggest advantages of this technology are efficiency and precision, making it much cheaper, faster, and simpler compared to traditional gene-editing methods. Thanks to its applications, it is used in everything from previously incurable genetic diseases to cancer research and even COVID-19 studies. The ability to modify DNA as easily as editing a cell in Excel is truly groundbreaking.

Who Developed It First: The Invention Origin Dispute

The most heated debate was about “who first developed the CRISPR technology.” A fierce legal battle ensued between two female scientists, Jennifer Doudna (UC Berkeley) and Emmanuelle Charpentier (Max Planck), and Feng Zhang (MIT Broad Institute). The key issue was whether the technology’s application to ‘bacteria’ or ‘human cells’ affected the scope of the patent rights.

Inventor	Key Contributions	Patent Affiliation
Jennifer Doudna & Emmanuelle Charpentier	Clarified the basic principles of CRISPR in bacteria	UC Berkeley, Max Planck Institute
Feng Zhang	First to apply CRISPR technology to human cells	MIT Broad Institute

The Course of the Patent War

The dispute went on for years between the U.S. Patent Office and the international patent organizations. The parties compared hundreds of pages of documents, experimental evidence, and even the timing of paper submissions to determine who successfully applied the technology first. The legal battle was not just about patent rights but also involved billions of dollars worth of industrial interests.

• 2012: Doudna and Charpentier team publish basic principles in Science journal
• 2013: Feng Zhang team publishes paper on human cell application in Cell journal
• 2016–2022: Ongoing patent challenges and appeals at the U.S. Patent Office

Impact on the Biotechnology Industry

The CRISPR patent dispute has had a significant impact on the biotechnology industry. Depending on which patent a research lab or company has access to, the costs and availability of the technology vary, affecting valuations of biotech startups. Investors also made their decisions on which technology to bet on based on patent ownership.

Significance of the Verdict and Future Issues

In 2022, the U.S. Patent Trial and Appeal Board granted priority to Feng Zhang’s team for the application of CRISPR technology to human cells, settling one side of the controversy. However, there are still overlapping patents regarding applications in bacteria and other organisms, leaving the legal structure of CRISPR technology’s use and licensing still complex.

Year	Key Verdict	Impact
2017	Broad Institute’s human cell patent granted	Technology commercialization by related companies
2022	UC Berkeley’s appeal dismissed	Reorganization of technology usage rights, license renegotiation

Ethical Considerations and the Future of the Technology

CRISPR has immense potential as a medical technology, but ethical debates are still ongoing. Concerns over human embryo modifications, genetic enhancement, and issues of accessibility and fairness remain unresolved. As the technology advances, it becomes increasingly important to strike a balance between what can be done and what should be done.

• Ethical debate over human embryo manipulation through gene editing
• Ambiguity between therapeutic uses and designer babies
• Disparities in healthcare access due to technology monopolies

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ)

Q How does CRISPR edit genes?

A guide RNA locates the specific DNA position, and the Cas9 enzyme cuts that region, allowing for the removal or insertion of genes.

Q What was the core of the CRISPR patent dispute?

The main issue was the competition over who first successfully applied CRISPR technology to human cells.

Q What advantages does having the patent provide for commercialization?

Companies that want to use the technology must pay royalties, and exclusive rights to the patent make market entry easier, generating huge profits.

Q Can CRISPR be applied to humans right now?

Some diseases are being treated through clinical trials, but due to ethical concerns and safety tests, its use is still limited.

Q Do people need a license to use CRISPR technology?

Yes, they need to get an official license from the patent-holding institution, and royalties are set based on the usage scope.

Q How will CRISPR technology develop in the future?

The focus will be on improving precision, reducing off-target effects, and establishing ethical guidelines, aiming to ensure safety and public benefit.

In Conclusion: The Progress of Science and the Battle for Rights Behind It

CRISPR is truly an amazing technology. But with its potential came fierce competition over who gets to use and own it. I believe that for science to progress in a way that benefits humanity, it's crucial that the patent system operates fairly. Watching this situation unfold, I realized that while technology itself is neutral, the people and systems that wield it can greatly change its outcomes. What do you think? Share your thoughts in the comments. This is a moment when science, society, and law intersect, and we all need to reflect on it together.

Mutant Mouse Patent Dispute – The Border Between Biotechnology and Intellectual Property

Could a single mouse ignite an international patent war? A tense tug-of-war between science and law over life.

Hello! Today’s case may be unfamiliar, but it shook both the biotechnology and legal communities — the Mutant Mouse Patent Dispute. This genetically engineered mouse, developed for disease research, has been widely used in laboratories around the world. But a fierce battle over the 'ownership' of this mouse has arisen among universities, governments, and corporations. This case goes beyond experimental animals and poses the philosophical question: Can living organisms be patented? Let’s dive into this fascinating and important story.

Table of Contents

1. What is OncoMouse? 2. Patent Filing and Harvard's Ownership Claim 3. Disputes Over Patent Recognition in Different Countries 4. Ethical Issues in Life Patents 5. The Dilemma Between Scientific Research and Commercialization 6. What is the Future of Biotechnology Patents?

1. What is OncoMouse?

OncoMouse is a genetically modified laboratory mouse developed by a research team at Harvard University. This mouse was designed by inserting specific genes so that cancer develops naturally, making it extremely useful in cancer research. It became the standard model in the biomedical field worldwide, especially in studies related to breast and skin cancers.

However, controversy arose over whether this mouse could be considered a “patentable subject”. The question was whether a genetically altered organism could be legally recognized as intellectual property.

2. Patent Filing and Harvard's Ownership Claim

In 1984, Harvard University filed the first patent application for a living organism with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO). In 1988, the USPTO approved the patent, stating that “living organisms artificially created through genetic modification can be patented.” This marked the first animal patent in U.S. history and caused a major stir.

Item	Details
Patent Name	Transgenic non-human mammal (OncoMouse)
Applicant	Harvard University (Inventor: Philip Leder)
Patent Granted Year	1988 (U.S.), 1992 (some European countries)
Controversy	Ownership of living organisms, expanded ethical debates

3. Disputes Over Patent Recognition in Different Countries

While the OncoMouse patent was filed in many countries after the U.S., each nation produced different outcomes. Some recognized the patent, while others rejected or limited it for ethical reasons.

• United States: First approval, sparked biotechnology industry growth
• Canada: Recognized DNA manipulation, but not patenting the animal itself
• European Patent Office (EPO): Approved with limitation to “mouse” after ethical debates (1992)
• Germany, Netherlands: Rejected or conditionally approved based on animal welfare laws

These international differences reflect the philosophical variations in how legal status is granted to living organisms and in perceptions of scientific technology.

4. Ethical Issues in Life Patents

The OncoMouse patent raised a fundamental question beyond intellectual property: Can humans “own” or “commercialize” life? Granting a patent on an entire living being—not just a part—has been criticized from the perspective of animal rights and bioethics.

Animal rights groups and ethicists continuously questioned whether it is truly justifiable for genetically modified animals to suffer and be sacrificed. In some countries, there were even discussions of legislation to ban life patents altogether.

5. The Dilemma Between Scientific Research and Commercialization

After the OncoMouse patent, disputes emerged between universities/research institutions and biotech companies over profit sharing and access limitations. Harvard licensed the patent to DuPont for commercialization, and as a result, researchers had to pay usage fees to use the mouse.

Field	Impact
Public Research	Concerns over restricted research due to licensing fees
Commercialization	Provided exclusive profit opportunities to patent holders
International Cooperation	Sparked conflicts between nations due to differences in patent coverage

6. What is the Future of Biotechnology Patents?

With the emergence of CRISPR, patents for gene-edited life forms are expected to become even more complex and crucial. As patent scopes expand to include AI-designed organisms, synthetic life forms, and genetic data databases, balancing law and ethics has become more important than ever.

• Could synthetic biology also become subject to patents?
• Rising issues over ownership of genetic data
• Growing need for mechanisms ensuring global public research access

Ultimately, we face the question: “Who defines life, and who is entitled to own it?”

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ)

Q What diseases is OncoMouse used to study?

It is primarily used in research on various types of cancer, including breast cancer, skin cancer, and colon cancer. It is a highly useful model for studying tumor development and treatment mechanisms.

Q Can living organisms be patented?

In some countries, yes—but not all. Patents are generally granted only when there is a clear artificial intervention, such as genetic modification.

Q Who is allowed to purchase OncoMouse?

DuPont, which held the license from Harvard, sold it to research institutions, universities, and pharmaceutical companies. Commercial use required a separate licensing agreement.

Q Why did some countries reject the patent?

Mainly due to ethical reasons. Many countries considered human ownership over living beings unjust or found it incompatible with animal welfare laws.

Q Do patents hinder research?

They can. Public research institutions and nonprofits have raised concerns that legal and financial barriers make access to such technologies difficult.

Q Will patents on living organisms continue to increase?

The potential is high with advancements in gene-editing technologies, but sustainable systems will require more refined legal and ethical standards.

Reconsidering the Boundaries of Rights and Ownership Over Life

The OncoMouse patent dispute isn’t merely a clash between science and intellectual property—it fundamentally asks how we define and regard life. Should life be viewed solely as a tool, or should it be treated with respect? As genetic technologies evolve, this debate will intensify. I hope today’s story inspires reflection on the future of biotechnology. Where do your thoughts lie?