Patent board tells CRISPR sci­en­tists to back off from a nasty fight over gene edit­ing tech

The lat­est round in the ti­tle patent fight be­tween The Broad and UC Berkele­ly over CRISPR/Cas9 tech goes to … Ed­i­tas Med­i­cine.

The US Patent Tri­al and Ap­peal Board has ruled:

In light of the de­ter­mi­na­tion that the par­ties’ claims do not in­ter­fere (see 2 De­ci­sion on Mo­tions, Pa­per 893), we en­ter judg­ment of no in­ter­fer­ence-in-fact, 3 which nei­ther can­cels nor fi­nal­ly re­fus­es ei­ther par­ties’ claims.

Quick­ly trans­lat­ed, that means that the work they each com­plet­ed on the gene edit­ing tech doesn’t over­lap and can be sep­a­rate­ly patent­ed.

Jen­nifer Doud­na

Berke­ley has fought hard to es­tab­lish pre­em­i­nent con­trol of CRISPR, the faster, eas­i­er way to do gene edit­ing which has been spread­ing like wild­fire at aca­d­e­m­ic groups and star­tups. Berke­ley’s Jen­nifer Doud­na and Em­manuelle Char­p­en­tier have been cred­it­ed with much of the work, which has been used to found a group of star­tups like In­tel­lia $NT­LA, down 10% this af­ter­noon, and CRISPR Ther­a­peu­tics — $CR­SP down 8%.

A for­mer col­league, Feng Zhang at the Broad, was ac­cused of us­ing their work to back patents used to start up Ed­i­tas $ED­IT.

Berke­ley is not the least bit hap­py:

We con­tin­ue to main­tain that the ev­i­dence over­whelm­ing­ly sup­ports our po­si­tion that the Doud­na/Char­p­en­tier team was the first group to in­vent this tech­nol­o­gy for use in all set­tings and all cell types, and was the first to pub­lish and file patent ap­pli­ca­tions di­rect­ed to­ward that in­ven­tion, and that the Broad In­sti­tute’s patents di­rect­ed to­ward use of the CRISPR-Cas9 sys­tem in par­tic­u­lar cell types are not patentably dis­tinct from the Doud­na/Char­p­en­tier in­ven­tion.

And they may ap­peal.

Feng Zhang

In­vestors, though, called it a clear win for Ed­i­tas, swift­ly dri­ving up its stock by 29%.

It’s still ear­ly days in the CRISPR world, but gene edit­ing has opened a door to cre­at­ing a whole new gen­er­a­tion of ther­a­pies that can fix some ter­ri­ble ail­ments. And the po­ten­tial pay­off is huge.

Ed­i­tas CEO Ka­trine Bosley is sat­is­fied by the de­ci­sion. Her com­ment:

This im­por­tant de­ci­sion af­firms the in­ven­tive­ness of the Broad’s work in trans­lat­ing the bi­ol­o­gy of the nat­ur­al world in­to fun­da­men­tal build­ing blocks to cre­ate un­prece­dent­ed med­i­cines. At Ed­i­tas Med­i­cine, we are con­tin­u­ing to in­vest in this tech­nol­o­gy to build our busi­ness for the long-term and to cre­ate genome edit­ing ther­a­pies for pa­tients suf­fer­ing from ge­net­i­cal­ly-de­fined and ge­net­i­cal­ly-treat­able dis­eases.

Ka­trine Bosley, Ed­i­tas

In­tel­lia, CRISPR and Cari­bou, an­oth­er al­ly in the patent fight, say they can ac­tu­al­ly step up a fight along a much broad­er front now. In a joint re­sponse, they not­ed:

The PT­AB dis­con­tin­ued the cur­rent in­ter­fer­ence find­ing that the claim sets pre­sent­ed by the two par­ties were con­sid­ered “patentably dis­tinct” from each oth­er be­cause UC’s cur­rent claims are broad­er in scope in that they are not re­strict­ed to use in eu­kary­ot­ic cells, where­as Broad’s claims are all lim­it­ed to use in eu­kary­ot­ic cells. As a re­sult of the de­ci­sion, UC’s broad­er case, which was pre­vi­ous­ly con­sid­ered al­low­able but for the in­ter­fer­ence, is now re­leased from the in­ter­fer­ence and may be pros­e­cut­ed to po­ten­tial is­suance by UC, while a new in­ter­fer­ence can be sought with re­spect to eu­kary­ote claims, cur­rent­ly pend­ing in a sep­a­rate UC patent ap­pli­ca­tion once they are deemed al­low­able. Al­ter­na­tive­ly, UC could ap­peal the cur­rent de­ci­sion, which is cur­rent­ly un­der con­sid­er­a­tion.

Patent fights rarely cap­ture the at­ten­tion of the in­dus­try the way this one has. Most ei­ther don’t go very far or end up be­ing re­solved in a side deal that doesn’t have a huge in­flu­ence on the play­ers or the tech­nol­o­gy in­volved. As pas­sion­ate as these in­di­vid­u­als are about CRISPR, though, we prob­a­bly haven’t heard the last about this squab­ble.

Qual­i­ty Con­trol in Cell and Gene Ther­a­py – What’s Re­al­ly at Stake?

In early 2021, Bluebird Bio was forced to suspend clinical trials of its gene therapy for sickle cell disease after two patients in the trial developed cancer. As company scientists rushed to assess whether there was any causal link between the therapy and the cancer cases, Bluebird’s stock value plummeted – as did those of multiple other biopharma companies developing similar therapies.

While investigations concluded that the gene therapy was unlikely to have caused cancer, investors and the public may be more skittish regarding the safety of gene and cell therapies after this episode. This recent example highlights how delicate the fields of cell and gene therapy remain today, even as they show great promise.

Sen. Patty Murray (D-WA) (Graeme Sloan/Sipa USA/Sipa via AP Images)

Sen­a­tors to NIH: Do more to pro­tect US bio­med­ical re­search from for­eign in­flu­ence

Although Thursday’s Senate health committee hearing was focused on how foreign countries and adversaries might be trying to steal or negatively influence biomedical research in the US, the only country mentioned by the senators and expert witnesses was China.

Committee chair Patty Murray (D-WA) made clear in her opening remarks that the US cannot “let the few instances of bad actors” overshadow the hard work of the many immigrant researchers in the US, many of which have won Nobel prizes for their work. But she also said, “There is more the NIH can be doing here.”

Law pro­fes­sors call for FDA to dis­close all safe­ty and ef­fi­ca­cy da­ta for drugs

Back in early 2018 when Scott Gottlieb led the FDA, there was a moment when the agency seemed poised to release redacted complete response letters and other previously undisclosed data. But that initiative never gained steam.

Now, a growing chorus of researchers are finding that a dearth of public data on clinical trials and pharmaceuticals means industry and the FDA cannot be held accountable, two law professors from Yale and New York University write in an article published Wednesday in the California Law Review.

Endpoints Premium

Premium subscription required

Unlock this article along with other benefits by subscribing to one of our paid plans.

JP Gabriel, Ocugen

JP Gabriel watched from the bleach­ers as the pan­dem­ic raged. Now head of sup­ply chain at Ocu­gen, he's ready to bat

The world was in the middle of the most pressing public health risk his generation had ever seen, and JP Gabriel felt like he was sitting on the sidelines. As a VP of biologics and mRNA manufacturing at Ultragenyx, Gabriel watched from the sidelines as players like Pfizer/BioNTech and Moderna used mRNA tech to chase their own Covid-19 vaccines.

This month, Gabriel got the chance to get his hands dirty against the pandemic — but it won’t be with mRNA.

Endpoints News

Keep reading Endpoints with a free subscription

Unlock this story instantly and join 107,400+ biopharma pros reading Endpoints daily — and it's free.

Novavax CEO Stanley Erck at the White House in 2020 (Andrew Harnik, AP Images)

As fears mount over J&J and As­traZeneca, No­vavax en­ters a shaky spot­light

As concerns rise around the J&J and AstraZeneca vaccines, global attention is increasingly turning to the little, 33-year-old, productless, bankruptcy-flirting biotech that could: Novavax.

In the now 16-month race to develop and deploy Covid-19 vaccines, Novavax has at times seemed like the pandemic’s most unsuspecting frontrunner and at times like an overhyped also-ran. Although they started the pandemic with only enough cash to last 6 months, they leveraged old connections and believers into $2 billion and emerged last summer with data experts said surpassed Pfizer and Moderna. They unveiled plans to quickly scale to 2 billion doses. Then they couldn’t even make enough material to run their US trial and watched four other companies beat them to the finish line.

FDA of­fers scathing re­view of Emer­gent plan­t's san­i­tary con­di­tions, em­ploy­ee train­ing af­ter halt­ing pro­duc­tion

The FDA wrapped up its inspection of Emergent’s troubled vaccine manufacturing plant in Baltimore on Tuesday, after halting production there on Monday. By Wednesday morning, the agency already released a series of scathing observations on the cross contamination, sanitary issues and lack of staff training that caused the contract manufacturer to dispose of millions of AstraZeneca and J&J vaccine doses.

Brad Bolzon (Versant)

Ver­sant pulls the wraps off of near­ly $1B in 3 new funds out to build the next fleet of biotech star­tups. And this new gen­er­a­tion is built for speed

Brad Bolzon has an apology to offer by way of introducing a set of 3 new funds that together pack a $950 million wallop in new biotech creation and growth.

“I want to apologize,” says the Versant chairman and managing partner, laughing a little in the intro, “that we don’t have anything fancy or flashy to tell you about our new fund. Same team, around the same amount of capital, same investment strategy. If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.”

But then there’s the flip side, where everything has changed. Or at least speeded into a relative blur. Here’s Bolzon:

Endpoints Premium

Premium subscription required

Unlock this article along with other benefits by subscribing to one of our paid plans.

Covid-19 man­u­fac­tur­ing roundup: Mary­land looks to grow biotech ca­pac­i­ty with $400M check; Rus­sia lands sec­ond Sput­nik V part­ner this week

A Maryland real estate project has added three new biotech-focused manufacturing and research buildings to an office park to keep up with demand created by the pandemic, the Washington Business Journal reported.

The Milestone Business Park — located off of I-270 in Germantown, MD — will see the new buildings and a total of 532,000 square feet as the campus rebrands to Milestone Innovation Park.

Jenny Rooke (Genoa Ventures)

Ear­ly Zymer­gen in­vestor Jen­ny Rooke re­flects on 'chimeras' in biotech, what it takes to spot a $500M gem

When Jenny Rooke first heard of Zymergen back in 2014, she knew she was looking at something different and exciting. The Emeryville, CA biotech held the promise of blending biology and technology to solve a huge unmet need for cost-effective chemicals — of all things — and a stellar founding team to boot.

But back then, West Coast venture capitalists didn’t see in Zymergen the one thing they were looking for in a winning biotech: therapeutic potential. Rooke, however, saw an opportunity and made her bets. Seven years later, that bet is paying off in a big way.

Endpoints News

Keep reading Endpoints with a free subscription

Unlock this story instantly and join 107,400+ biopharma pros reading Endpoints daily — and it's free.