The Boston Globe mentioned Partner Katherine Rubino in “The Broad won the biggest CRISPR patent fight yet, but the rivalry over gene editing is still simmering” covering MIT’s Broad Institute’s recent win over Crispr innovation and patent authority.

The Boston Globe Excerpt:

Further complicating the question of who owns the technology is one of Berkeley’s patents — shared with the University of Vienna and Emmanuelle Charpentier, a group collectively called CVC — is written to seemingly cover any use of CRISPR-Cas9. In a statement to the Globe, Crispr Therapeutics emphasized the importance of that broad patent. “As it stands today, parties commercializing gene editing medicines using CRISPR/Cas9 will need a license to the CVC portfolio.”

Lawyers are split on how to interpret Berkeley’s sweeping patent and say it could lead to more legal disputes. Katherine Ann Rubino, a life science patent attorney at Caldwell Intellectual Property Law in Boston, said that companies developing CRISPR-Cas9 therapies may need licenses from both Berkeley and the Broad.

Other experts, including Sherkow, say the patent court’s ruling could prevent Berkeley from enforcing the most valuable uses of its patent — plant, animal, and human applications of CRISPR-Cas9 — since those uses clash with the Broad’s patent.

Click here to read the full article