MORE CRISPR RIGHTS AHEAD? A long-running dispute over intellectual property rights for the CRISPR technology at the heart of the first-ever approved gene-editing therapy could complicate its rollout. The FDA’s approval Friday of the therapy for sickle cell disease is a watershed moment for CRISPR, the 12-year-old technology that scientists believe could be used to treat many debilitating diseases. The backstory: The Broad Institute — a genomic research partnership between the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and Harvard University — holds the U.S. patents on editing human cells with CRISPR. The University of California and the two scientists awarded the Nobel Prize for discovering the technology, Jennifer Doudna and Emmanuelle Charpentier, have challenged Broad in court over the past several years. While Doudna and Charpentier are credited with creating CRISPR, Broad and scientist Feng Zhang claim they were the first to apply the innovation to living cells. Both parties filed for patents around the time U.S. intellectual property law underwent a major shift. In 2013, patent law went from a “first-to-invent” standard to a “first-to-apply” one. An appeal is pending in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. Why it matters: Broad and its affiliates can sue companies that don’t have licenses for their patents for infringement, said Jacob Sherkow, a law professor at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign College of Law who’s closely followed the dispute. But they can’t sue until a new product hits the market, he said, which will happen following the FDA’s recent approval. “I would be surprised, bluntly, if [a lawsuit] does not get filed by the end of this year,” Sherkow said. CRISPR Therapeutics, one of the companies behind the approved therapy, known as Casgevy, doesn’t hold a CRISPR license, Sherkow said, adding he doesn’t believe its partner, Vertex, does either. Spokespersons for both companies didn’t respond to requests for comment. Editas Medicine is the exclusive licensee for Broad’s patent portfolio covering CRISPR technology. Spokesperson Cristi Barnett said the company regularly considers and grants sublicenses to other companies but wouldn’t confirm any “specific conversations until there is a signed agreement.” The upshot: Under U.S. patent law, companies don’t have to hold patents to put inventions — like new drugs — through the regulatory approval process, Sherkow said. But product developers also know this so-called safe harbor is time-limited, he said, raising questions about why the patent dispute wasn’t settled earlier. IT’S TUESDAY. WELCOME BACK TO PRESCRIPTION PULSE. David just returned from a two-week vacation — welcome him back! Send news and tips to Lauren Gardner (lgardner@politico.com or @Gardner_LM) or David Lim (dlim@politico.com or @davidalim). TODAY ON OUR PULSE CHECK PODCAST, host Ben Leonard talks with POLITICO health care reporter Megan Messerly about her report on a coming mining boom that brings with it industry jobs that have good health care benefits — and how that can counterintuitively damage health care access, boosting it for some while hampering it for others.
|
No comments:
Post a Comment