Foundational CRISPR patent rights remain fiercely contested, with disputes playing out across multiple jurisdictions.
Short for Clustered Regularly Interspaced Short Palindromic Repeats, CRISPR is a revolutionary gene-editing technology that enables precise, efficient modification of DNA. But ongoing legal battles have created significant uncertainty for innovators, researchers, and commercial developers seeking to use CRISPR.
Outlined below is a summary of the current state of the CRISPR patent landscape, including major disputes and proceedings in key jurisdictions, and an overview of the patent pool concept as a potential licensing solution.
Patent proceedings in key jurisdictions
The CVC group (University of California, University of Vienna, and Emmanuelle Charpentier) and the Broad Institute each hold important patent assets, while ToolGen, Sigma-Aldrich, and others continue to expand their portfolios and challenge rivals' rights.
Europe
In late 2024, the CVC group voluntarily withdrew two of their own foundational European CRISPR patents (EP 2800811 and EP 3401400), following an unfavorable preliminary opinion from the EPO Board of Appeal that questioned the sufficiency of disclosure and priority entitlement. This self-revocation allowed CVC to avoid a negative appellate ruling and quickly pivot.
In January 2025, the EPO notified CVC of its intention to grant divisional application EP 4289948, containing broad claims to single-guide RNAs, modified DNA-targeting RNAs, and complexes with naturally occurring Cas9.
The Broad Institute has also seen recent success in Europe, with the EPO Board of Appeal finding it entitled to claim priority to a key US provisional application, boosting its prospects for broad Cas9 IP rights.
Opponents are expected to challenge other patent assets, and ongoing opposition proceedings are likely.
United States
In May 2025, the Federal Circuit vacated and remanded a PTAB decision that had awarded priority for eukaryotic CRISPR/Cas9 to the Broad Institute, finding that the PTAB conflated legal standards for conception and reduction to practice and failed to weigh corroborating evidence properly.
Related interferences involving ToolGen and Sigma-Aldrich remain stayed, and the outcome will shape the U.S. landscape for years to come. The uncertainty is expected to persist, with the possibility that some of the earliest, broadest patents may expire before the disputes are resolved.
Other key jurisdictions
In Japan, CVC recently secured a major victory when the Japan IP High Court upheld a key CRISPR/Cas9 patent against ToolGen's challenge, reinforcing CVC's position in Asia.
The China National Intellectual Property Administration upheld a fundamental CVC patent in 2024 after an invalidation petition, further strengthening CVC's global portfolio.
Patent pools as a licensing option
Ongoing litigation and opposition proceedings in major markets create a complex web of legal risks. As noted by IAM (Aug 2025):
"[T]he CRISPR patent landscape is still very much in motion, leaving CVC's licensing agents with the difficult task of explaining its intricacies to potential licensees."
Patent owners have primarily deployed bilateral licensing programs. For example, the CVC group has established a multi-pronged licensing strategy, with CRISPR Therapeutics, ERS Genomics, Intellia Therapeutics, and Caribou Biosciences all managing different aspects of the portfolio. ToolGen has its own licensing program for CRISPR. The Broad Institute has an exclusive joint license agreement with Editas Medicine.
Drug developers cannot rely on a single licence. In many cases, companies must obtain licenses from CVC, the Broad Institute, ToolGen, and others to ensure global coverage and avoid litigation. As IAM (May 2025) notes:
"[I]t is likely that Cas9 drug developers will need a licence from more than one IP owner."
Given the complexity and fragmentation of the CRISPR patent landscape, a patent pool may be a potential solution. Patent pools, agreements between multiple patent owners to aggregate and jointly license essential patents, have been successful in other technology sectors, such as the MPEG-2 pool in digital video. In the life sciences, patent pools could reduce transaction costs, avoid royalty stacking, and provide more efficient access to foundational CRISPR technologies.
However, there are challenges in establishing a CRISPR pool, including the need for buy-in from all major patent holders, agreement on royalty rates, and compliance with antitrust regulations. The now inactive VIA Licensing's CRISPR patent pool demonstrates the difficulty of achieving consensus among stakeholders.
A well-structured patent pool could help unlock the full potential of CRISPR—and other life sciences technologies, like mRNA platform technologies—by providing fair, non-discriminatory access to essential patents while ensuring that patent owners are properly compensated. Until such a pool is established and widely adopted, companies must continue to navigate the complex web of individual licensing agreements and ongoing legal disputes.
Conclusion
As the CRISPR patent saga enters its second decade, CRISPR's commercial future remains uncertain. This creates challenges for companies operating in gene editing, e.g. maintaining multi-source licensing, vigilant monitoring of opposition dockets, and flexible budgeting for litigation. The promise of a patent pool remains a potential path to clarity and efficiency in this high-stakes field.
Read the original article on GowlingWLG.com
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
