b'in 2022, to the UC Berkeley group and the Broad Institute. ToolGens has also been allowed as of 2023.The Canadian patent of the UC Berkeley group is licensed to ERS Genomics, a company founded by Charpentier to commercialize the technology. According to ERS Genomics, this patent is the first of many that it expects to be granted in Canada, covering various aspects of CRISPR-Cas9.Although it took some time to obtain this first Canadian patent, it is one of the most comprehensive and inclusive patents in the ERS portfolio to date. Canada has an impres-sive history in the life science arena, and we foresee CRISPR playing an important role in the future of Canadian biotech, said the companys VP of Intellectual Property and Corporate Development Michael Arciero in a statement.The granting of this patent could have significant implica-tions for the Canadian biotechnology sector, as it could affectYoori Kim is chief legal officer for ToolGen.the access and affordability of CRISPR-Cas9 for research and development purposes. Depending on the terms and conditions of the license agreements, Canadian researchers and companiesTOOLGEN DETERMINED TOmay have to pay royalties or fees to use the technology or mayMAKE ITS MARKface legal challenges if they infringe the patent.Alternatively, they may seek to use other gene-editing tech- ToolGen, a South Korean biotechnology company, has entered nologies that are not covered by the patent, or to challenge thethe CRISPR patent fray, challenging the claims of two prominent validity or scope of the patent in court.research institutions: the Broad Institute of MIT and Harvard, and Navigating the CRISPR Patent Mine Field the University of California, Berkeley (UCB). Business owners like Skori who are currently shopping aroundToolGen says that it invented the use of CRISPR in eukaryotic for what gene editing platform to use find themselves navigat- cells, such as animal and plant cells, before the Broad Institute ing a complicated landscape and trying to decide which direc- and UCB. Eukaryotic cells are the basis of most living organisms, tion to take. To obtain a CRISPR patent, the innovation mustand the ability to edit their genomes is crucial for the applications meet certain criteria: it has to be novel, unique, and serve aof CRISPR. ToolGen says that it filed its patent application in specific function, he notes. The challenge arises in the fact thatOctober 2012, while the Broad Institute filed in December 2012, the gene editing platform, despite being a physical entity, exists on a microscopic scale, making it difficult to conceptualize, heand UCB filed in March 2013. explains. Yoori Kim, the chief legal officer of ToolGen, granted Seed World Essentially, what makes it complicated is that its a tangibleCanada an interview about the situation (both the Broad Institute thing, yet it operates at a level thats hard to grasp. At its core, aand UCB declined to be interviewed, but the former did provide gene editing platform is delivered as a set of instructions. Whilesome supplementary information for this story). it is a physical entity youre paying for, the process involves receiving the genetic sequence and then incorporating it intoWe have strong evidence and arguments to support our claims. the plant, he says. We have been working on this technology for a long time, and we Once activated, it physically generates the gene editinghave made significant contributions to the field of gene editing. system. So, in a way, youre acquiring a tangible product, butWe believe that we deserve to be recognized and rewarded for the means of obtaining it involves receiving and executingour innovation, Kim says. instructions within the plant.Different tools offer varying functionalities, and companiesDespite being an underdog in the CRISPR battle, ToolGen is must evaluate their intentions when choosing a system, he says. determined to make its mark on the history of CRISPR, she adds.Cost considerations are significant and vary based on theIn the United States, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) is size of the company. Efficiency is crucial too, because savingcurrently considering who was first to invent the CRISPR-Cas9 money might be counterproductive if the chosen system is notgene-editing technology. ToolGen argues that it was the first efficient, ultimately resulting in wasted time and additionalto use the technology in plants and animals. The PTAB named costs, he adds.ToolGen the senior party in the proceedings, which means the burden of proof is on UCB and the Broad Institute to show they developed CRISPR-Cas9 to practice before ToolGen.6GERMINATION.CAJANUARY 2024'