The con­tin­u­ing CRISPR patent saga

Biotech Voices is a collection of exclusive opinion editorials from some of the leading voices in biopharma on the biggest industry questions today. Think you have a voice that should be heard? Reach out to Amber Tong.

CRISPR has the po­ten­tial to be one of the most rev­o­lu­tion­ary (or dan­ger­ous) ge­net­ic ma­nip­u­la­tion tech­nolo­gies ever de­vel­oped.

It pro­vides re­searchers with the abil­i­ty to “ed­it” ge­net­ic in­for­ma­tion (in­clud­ing both struc­tur­al genes en­cod­ing pro­teins as well as reg­u­la­to­ry se­quences that con­trol when a gene is ex­pressed, how much, and in what tis­sue) in ways hereto­fore on­ly more crude­ly prac­ticed; for ex­am­ple, by in­tro­duc­ing a het­erol­o­gous gene in­to a new cel­lu­lar en­vi­ron­ment. It thus has im­pli­ca­tions for agri­cul­ture — in­creas­ing yield, for ex­am­ple, or re­duc­ing al­ler­gens like gluten — as well as hu­man med­i­cine.

CRISPR was first re­port­ed by Jen­nifer Doud­na and Em­manuelle Char­p­en­tier in 2012, as an out­growth of their work on bac­te­r­i­al im­mu­ni­ty at the Uni­ver­si­ty of Cal­i­for­nia at Berke­ley and the Uni­ver­si­ty of Vi­en­na. They did not ex­plic­it­ly show that CRISPR could ed­it genes in eu­kary­ot­ic cells — i.e., al­most every type and species of cell ex­cept bac­te­ria — in their ear­li­est pub­lished work (al­though ap­ply­ing CRISPR to eu­kary­ot­ic DNA was en­vi­sioned) and there is some ev­i­dence that the ear­li­est ef­forts in achiev­ing eu­kary­ot­ic CRISPR were un­suc­cess­ful. The first sci­en­tif­ic pub­li­ca­tion demon­strat­ing that CRISPR could be ef­fec­tive­ly prac­ticed in eu­kary­ot­ic cells was by Zhang and col­leagues at The Broad In­sti­tute, MIT and Har­vard Uni­ver­si­ty; there­after, sev­er­al groups re­port­ed suc­cess­ful eu­kary­ot­ic CRISPR re­sults.

Both the Broad and “CVC” (Cal­i­for­nia, Vi­en­na, Char­p­en­tier) groups ac­com­pa­nied their sci­en­tif­ic work with patent ap­pli­ca­tions. This is be­cause both groups, and their uni­ver­si­ties, re­al­ized that in or­der to bring this tech­nol­o­gy to mar­ket there must be a rea­son­able like­li­hood of be­ing able to re­coup a suf­fi­cient­ly ro­bust re­turn on in­vest­ment to make that in­vest­ment worth­while, and this rea­son­able like­li­hood de­pends on hav­ing patent pro­tec­tion.

Both groups claimed in­ven­tor­ship over CRISPR ap­pli­ca­tions to eu­kary­ot­ic cells (which en­com­pass­es most of the most promis­ing ap­pli­ca­tions of the tech­nol­o­gy), and in the face of their com­pet­ing claims, the Patent Tri­al and Ap­peal Board (PT­AB)  in­sti­tut­ed an in­ter­fer­ence pro­ceed­ing to make the de­ter­mi­na­tion of who in­vent­ed eu­kary­ot­ic CRISPR  first.

Two years ago, the out­come of the first of these in­ter­fer­ences seem­ing­ly re­solved the ques­tion, al­beit im­per­fect­ly: the PT­AB de­cid­ed that the Broad In­sti­tute and their col­lab­o­ra­tors had the rights to eu­kary­ot­ic CRISPR ap­pli­ca­tions and that rights to CRISPR more gen­er­al­ly were owned by the Uni­ver­si­ty of Cal­i­for­nia at Berke­ley, the Uni­ver­si­ty of Vi­en­na and Em­manuelle Char­p­en­tier as an in­di­vid­ual.

This out­come had the ben­e­fit of cer­tain­ty in iden­ti­fy­ing who owned the rights to eu­kary­ot­ic CRISPR but suf­fered from the con­se­quence that any third par­ty wish­ing to bring CRISPR-mod­i­fied eu­kary­ot­ic or­gan­isms to mar­ket — or prod­ucts made by such or­gan­isms — would like­ly need a li­cense from both the Broad and CVC, which could re­sult in de­lays in com­mer­cial de­vel­op­ment (be­cause any third par­ty would re­quire li­cens­es from both CVC and the Broad).

In June 2019, the PT­AB de­clared an­oth­er in­ter­fer­ence be­tween these same par­ties, in­volv­ing again who has the rights to eu­kary­ot­ic ap­pli­ca­tions of CRISPR. Af­ter not pre­vail­ing in the first in­ter­fer­ence the CVC group had filed ap­pli­ca­tions di­rect­ed more nar­row­ly at eu­kary­ot­ic CRISPR em­bod­i­ments, and the PTO de­clared an in­ter­fer­ence be­tween these ap­pli­ca­tions and most of the same Broad patents and ap­pli­ca­tions in­volved in the first in­ter­fer­ence.

Hav­ing com­plet­ed the pre­lim­i­nary phase of the in­ter­fer­ence (with­out any sub­stan­tive change in the pos­ture of the par­ties re­gard­ing the pre­sump­tion that the Broad as Se­nior Par­ty is en­ti­tled to pri­or­i­ty based on the par­ties’ re­spec­tive fil­ing dates) the cur­rent in­ter­fer­ence is in the pri­or­i­ty phase, with both par­ties hav­ing filed ev­i­dence for their dates of con­cep­tion and dili­gence in re­duc­ing to prac­tice eu­kary­ot­ic em­bod­i­ments of CRISPR.

CVC has shown ev­i­dence of con­cep­tion as ear­ly as March 2012, and ev­i­dence of dili­gent ef­forts to show suc­cess­ful eu­kary­ot­ic CRISPR ex­per­i­ments from that time un­til its ear­li­est pri­or­i­ty date rec­og­nized by the PT­AB — Jan. 28, 2013. The Broad’s ear­li­est date of con­cep­tion is lat­er than CVC’s, in June 2012, with as­sert­ed re­duc­tion to prac­tice in Ju­ly 2012. This time­line would or­di­nar­i­ly in­di­cate that CVC should win the pri­or­i­ty bat­tle, but the Broad has as­sert­ed a nu­anced counter-ar­gu­ment; the Broad con­tends that the un­pre­dictabil­i­ty of us­ing CRISPR in eu­kary­ot­ic cells is suf­fi­cient­ly high that on­ly by ac­tu­al­ly re­duc­ing the in­ven­tion to prac­tice in a eu­kary­ot­ic cell could the in­ven­tion be con­ceived.

If the PT­AB agrees with this ar­gu­ment the Broad should pre­vail. Fur­ther com­pli­cat­ing this in­ter­fer­ence is that the PT­AB has grant­ed per­mis­sion for CVC to de­pose two oth­er sci­en­tists thought to have in­for­ma­tion re­lat­ing to whether Broad sci­en­tists de­rived their in­ven­tion from the CVC in­ven­tors. Ini­tial res­o­lu­tion of the pri­or­i­ty ques­tion should be made some­time this year. But be­cause what­ev­er the out­come the PT­AB’s de­ci­sion is sure to be ap­pealed to the Fed­er­al Cir­cuit Court of Ap­peals, fi­nal res­o­lu­tion is at least a year away.

A fur­ther com­pli­ca­tion is that the PT­AB de­clared two ad­di­tion­al in­ter­fer­ences, nam­ing Ko­re­an com­pa­ny Tool­Gen as Se­nior Par­ty — and pre­sump­tive first to in­vent — against CVC and Broad, sep­a­rate­ly. These in­ter­fer­ences are in the ear­ly, so-called mo­tions phase, and will not reach the pri­or­i­ty phase (if ei­ther of them reach this phase) un­til this fall, with fi­nal res­o­lu­tion un­like­ly un­til some­time next year. In ad­di­tion, an­oth­er par­ty, Sig­ma Aldrich, al­so has a claim to pri­or­i­ty for eu­kary­ot­ic CRISPR, al­though these claims are bot­tled up in a pro­ce­dur­al morass in the PTO that has pre­vent­ed Sig­ma from join­ing the fray de­spite their ar­gu­ment that join­ing them to the ex­ist­ing in­ter­fer­ence would give the Of­fice (and the par­ties) a chance to re­solve the own­er­ship is­sue more ex­pe­di­tious­ly.

These cir­cum­stances leave the own­er­ship sta­tus of eu­kary­ot­ic CRISPR tech­nol­o­gy in lim­bo for at least the fore­see­able fu­ture. This state of af­fairs rais­es clear im­ped­i­ments to com­mer­cial de­vel­op­ment, at least un­til and if the par­ties de­cide some way to cross-li­cense CRISPR to third par­ties.

While the chal­lenges of de­vel­op­ing CRISPR tech­nol­o­gy over the next decade will un­doubt­ed­ly be pre­dom­i­nant­ly sci­en­tif­ic and tech­no­log­i­cal, eco­nom­ic re­al­i­ties man­date that own­er­ship con­sid­er­a­tions will have a prac­ti­cal ef­fect on what com­pa­nies com­mer­cial­ize var­i­ous as­pects of the tech­nol­o­gy, where this com­mer­cial­iza­tion oc­curs, and the li­cens­ing costs and com­plex­i­ties that arise in the process.

Illustration: Assistant Editor Kathy Wong for Endpoints News

How Pur­due's $272M ad­dic­tion pay­out fund­ed a new home for its dis­card­ed non-opi­oid re­search

Don Kyle spent more than 20 years working for Purdue Pharma, right through the US opioid epidemic that led to the company’s rise and eventual infamy. But contrary to Purdue’s focus on OxyContin, Kyle was researching non-opioid painkillers — that is, until the company shelved his research.

As the company’s legal troubles mounted, Kyle found an unlikely way to reboot the project. In 2019, he took his work to an Oklahoma State University center that’s slated to receive more than two-thirds of the state’s $272 million settlement with Purdue over claims that the drugmaker’s behavior ignited the epidemic of opioid use and abuse.

Endpoints Premium

Premium subscription required

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

President Joe Biden at the State of the Union address with Vice President Kamala Harris and House Speaker Kevin McCarthy (Patrick Semansky/AP Images)

The drug pric­ing pres­i­dent: Biden warns of ve­to for any IRA re­peal at­tempts

President Joe Biden made clear in his “finish the job” State of the Union address last night that one of those jobs to be finished is insulin prices.

Biden’s push again to tackle insulin prices, after Republicans rebuffed the idea last summer and just after Biden won Medicare drug price negotiations/caps via the Inflation Reduction Act, shows how heavily he’s leaning into this work.

Rupert Vessey, Bristol Myers Squibb head of research and early development

Up­dat­ed: R&D tur­bu­lence at Bris­tol My­ers now in­cludes the end of a $650M al­liance and the de­par­ture of a top re­search cham­pi­on

This morning biotech Dragonfly put out word that Bristol Myers Squibb has handed back all rights to its IL-12 clinical-stage drug after spending $650 million to advance it into the clinic.

The news arrives amid a turbulent R&D stage for the pharma giant, which late last week highlighted Rupert Vessey’s decision to depart this summer as head of early-stage R&D following a crucial three-year stretch after he jumped to Bristol Myers in the big Celgene buyout. During that time he struck a series of deals for Bristol Myers, and also shepherded a number of Celgene programs down the pipeline, playing a major role for a lineup of biotechs which depended on him to champion their drugs.

Endpoints Premium

Premium subscription required

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

Bill Haney, Dragonfly CEO (Dave Pedley/Getty Images for SXSW)

Drag­on­fly chief: Bris­tol My­ers shouldn’t blame IL-12’s clin­i­cal per­for­mance for de­ci­sion to scrap the deal — eco­nom­ics played a key role

Bristol Myers Squibb says the IL-12 drug they were developing out of Dragonfly Therapeutics was scrubbed from the pipeline for a simple reason: It didn’t measure up on clinical performance.

But Bill Haney, the CEO of Dragonfly, is taking issue with that.

The early-stage drug, still in Phase I development, has passed muster with Bristol Myers’ general clinical expectations, advancing successfully while still in Phase I, he says.

Endpoints Premium

Premium subscription required

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

Utpal Koppikar, new Verily CFO

Ex­clu­sive: Ver­i­ly wel­comes Atara Bio­ther­a­peu­tics vet­er­an as new CFO

Verily, Alphabet’s life sciences outfit, has plucked a new CFO from the ranks of Atara Biotherapeutics, the company announced on Wednesday.

Utpal Koppikar joins Verily after a nearly five-year stint as CFO and senior VP at Atara, though his résumé also boasts roles at Gilead and Amgen.

The news follows a major reshuffling at Verily, including several senior departures earlier this year and a round of layoffs.

Endpoints News

Keep reading Endpoints with a free subscription

Unlock this story instantly and join 159,000+ biopharma pros reading Endpoints daily — and it's free.

Singer Nick Jonas is back at work for Dexcom, this time for its new G7 glucose monitor.

Dex­com's spokescelebri­ty Nick Jonas re­turns to Su­per Bowl in new glu­cose mon­i­tor com­mer­cial

Dexcom is going back to the Super Bowl with its pop singer and patient spokesperson Nick Jonas. Jonas takes center stage as the lone figure in the 30-second commercial showcasing Dexcom’s next-generation G7 continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) device.

Jonas’ sleight-of-hand tricks populate the commercial — he pinches his empty fingers together and pops them open to reveal the small CGM — even as he ends the ad, saying, “It’s not magic. It just feels that way.” Jonas then disappears in a puff of smoke.

Endpoints News

Keep reading Endpoints with a free subscription

Unlock this story instantly and join 159,000+ biopharma pros reading Endpoints daily — and it's free.

Richard Francis, newly-appointed Teva CEO (Novartis via Facebook)

New Te­va CEO Richard Fran­cis repri­or­i­tizes to 'get back to growth'

Six weeks into his new role at the helm of Teva Pharmaceutical, Richard Francis said it’s time to “get back to growth,” starting with a good look at the company’s priorities.

The chief executive has kicked off a strategic review, he announced during Teva’s quarterly call, which will continue over the next several months and produce results sometime in the middle of 2023. That means some pipeline cuts may be in store, he told Endpoints News, while declining to offer much more detail.

FDA Commissioner Robert Califf on Capitol Hill, Feb. 8, 2023 (Drew Angerer/Getty Images)

FDA com­mis­sion­er floats ideas on how to bet­ter han­dle the pan­dem­ic

FDA Commissioner Rob Califf joined the heads of the CDC and NIH in the hot seat today before a key House subcommittee, explaining that there needs to be a much faster, more coordinated way to oversee vaccine safety, and that foreign biopharma inspections, halted for years due to the pandemic, are slowly ramping up again.

Califf, who stressed to the House Energy and Commerce’s Subcommittee on Health that the CDC also needs better data, made clear that the FDA’s ability to monitor the safety of vaccines “would also benefit greatly by a coordinated federal public health data reporting authority.”

Sanofi is renewing its #VaccinesForDreams campaign with more stories, such as Juan's in Argentina (Sanofi)

Sanofi re­news so­cial cam­paign to re­mind that vac­cines let peo­ple ‘Dream Big’

Sanofi is highlighting people’s dreams — both big and small — to make the point that vaccines make them possible.

The renewed “Dream Big” global social media campaign’s newest dreamer is Juan, a teacher in the Misiones rainforest in Argentina whose story is told through videos on Instagram and Sanofi’s website with the hashtag #VaccinesForDreams.

The campaign ties to Sanofi’s broader umbrella initiative “Vaccine Stories” to promote the value of vaccines and drive awareness of the need for improved vaccination coverage.

Endpoints News

Keep reading Endpoints with a free subscription

Unlock this story instantly and join 159,000+ biopharma pros reading Endpoints daily — and it's free.