同时 CRISPR 技术的发明专利斗争了很久，闹得很大很大很大。一边是 Doudna 所在的 UC Berkeley，另一边是张锋所在的 MIT Broad Institute. 虽然发明这项技术的是 Doudna，但 Broad 抢先注册了专利，两边就一直为此打官司。
Patent dispute 在法庭上继续打官司，官司打得很大是因为这里牵涉到巨量的经济后果，因为 CRISPR 技术又简单又好用，而且涉及范围极广，不是一项专利而是很多很多的专利技术。但诺贝尔委员会的选择不是专利归属而是发明者。There's been an ongoing feud, including a fight over lucrative patents, over who deserves the most credit for the development of CRISPR-Cas9.
https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2017/02 ... were-drawn
Broad Institute 的专利官司：
https://www.biospace.com/article/-jc1n- ... t-for-now/
目前仍在打的官司：The patent battles revolve around changes in U.S. patent law in the last few years. For a long time, it was “first to invent,” meaning that whoever was the first person to invent or discover a technology was the patent owner. They had to prove it, which creates its own hurdles. Then, in late 2011, the U.S. switched to “first-to-file,” and it went into effect on March 16, 2013. Various aspects of the patent litigation also include which particular settings the patents apply to—in mammalian eukaryotic cells as opposed to bacterial cells, in test tubes or in live animals, for example, and whether Zhang’s developments were obvious or not based on Doudna and Charpentier’s work.
https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2020/09 ... -continues