One response to “The CRISPR Battles”

  1. alison

    Hey Mila, thanks for sharing! I had the same initial sense of unfairness towards the Berkeley scientists… though I suppose a Nobel Prize is not a bad consolation prize!

    I was curious to know whether those who do have a license for CRISPR would have any recourse against the original patent holder, given that their license would now be invalid. This doesn’t seem to be the case (at least, in Canadian law). In fact, the case law seems to suggest it’s even possible that a licensee would have to continue paying royalties to the original patent holder, even after the patent has been declared invalid (see Trubenizing Process Corp v John Forsyth Ltd, [1943] SCR 422)! It seems to be a matter of contract law and likely depends on how the duration of the license is worded within the terms of the licensing agreement: if the license is for a fixed term, as opposed to dependent on the subsistence of the patent, then a licensee will likely be required to continue to pay royalties to the patent holder for continued use of the patent for the duration of that fixed term, even if the patent is invalidated within that time.