Inventive Steps: The CRISPR Patent Dispute and Scientific Progress

EMBO Reports, Vol. 18, pp. 1047-1050 (2017)

5 Pages Posted: 28 Jun 2017 Last revised: 27 Dec 2017

See all articles by Jacob S. Sherkow

Jacob S. Sherkow

University of Illinois College of Law; Center for Advanced Studies in Biomedical Innovation Law

Date Written: July 6, 2017

Abstract

Recent decisions by patent offices in the USA and Europe concerning the revolutionary gene-editing technology, CRISPR/Cas9, have shed light on the importance — and puzzles — of one particular area of patent law: “nonobviousness”, as it known in the USA, or, in Europe, the “inventive step”. Patent law does not always neatly align itself with the realities of biological research. But these competing decisions from the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office and the European Patent Office have put those differences on parade. Unpacking these standards for CRISPR tell us a lot about how advances in biology are actually made — and how they are not.

Keywords: patent, nonobviousness, invention, crispr, science, biotechnology, intellectual property, ipr, broad, berkeley, doudna, zhang, charpentier, licensing

JEL Classification: K00, K23, K41, O3, O34, D23, K11

Suggested Citation

Sherkow, Jacob S., Inventive Steps: The CRISPR Patent Dispute and Scientific Progress (July 6, 2017). EMBO Reports, Vol. 18, pp. 1047-1050 (2017), Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2993133

Jacob S. Sherkow (Contact Author)

University of Illinois College of Law ( email )

504 E. Pennsylvania Avenue
Champaign, IL 61820
United States

Center for Advanced Studies in Biomedical Innovation Law ( email )

Studiestraede 6
Studiestrade 6
Copenhagen, DK-1455
Denmark

HOME PAGE: http://jura.ku.dk/cebil/staff/

Here is the Coronavirus
related research on SSRN

Paper statistics

Downloads
159
Abstract Views
1,082
rank
203,213
PlumX Metrics