[xoxox]

The decision could affect who gets to collect the lucrative licensing fees on using the technology.

Indeed.

[mdmathis6]

It appears the cancel the patents move might flush out the darker money interests in Europe that were attempting to have the patents scuttled in Europe.

[fruser1]

I like my chicken extra-CRISPR.

[AndyJackson]

So, the international community of scientists awards them the Nobel Prize for inventing it, after years of very extensive peer review and citition, suggesting that the invention was well enough described that they could reproduce it and build on it, but a bunch of effin lawyers decide not to “follow the science” and rule their invention as insufficient.

[Dave Wright]

This MIT article seems to be misinformation. Based on my research, both the Broad Institute and Charpentier/Doudna patents include information about PAM sequences. The patent disputes have not been centered on identifying PAM sites, but rather on other aspects of CRISPR technology and its applications. Specifically, the Broad patent is targeted at eukaryotic cells (cells with nuclei), while the original patent only described gene editing of bacteria cells that lack a nucleus. This has been the basis of the dispute from the beginning.

If the court decided the case based on the lack of identification of PAM sites in the original patent, this would be a technical error and reversible on appeal. Why Doudna and Charpentier are folding may have more to do with economics that on the merits of their defense.

[Leep]

I’ve turned down several nobel prizes.

[Moltke]

after a damaging August opinion from a European technical appeals board, which ruled that the duo’s earliest patent filing didn’t explain CRISPR well enough for other scientists to use it

This relates to Art. 138 (1)(b) EPC (European Patent Convention) which states:

(1)Subject to Article 139, a European patent may be revoked with effect for a Contracting State only on the grounds that:

(...)

(b)the European patent does not disclose the invention in a manner sufficiently clear and complete for it to be carried out by a person skilled in the art;

The Nobel laureates’ lawyers say the decision is so wrong and unfair that they have no choice but to preemptively cancel their patents, a scorched-earth tactic whose aim is to prevent the unfavorable legal finding from being recorded as the reason.

This makes no sense. The opinion (not yet "decision" - in any case before the EPO appeal boards, the board will issue a preliminary opinion based on the filings and arguments previously presented by both sides. A decision is only made after the oral proceeding.) is known and accessible by anyone. They cannot at this time refile with amendments to the claims or specification. And no patent attorney will whine "this is wrong and unfair so we will cancel the patent." That's a toddler's tantrum. If wrong, and the decision is handed down, they will appeal to the Enlarged Board of Appeal of the EPO, and given the significance of the case it would likely be heard.