CRISPR Patent Dispute

Lawyers for the Broad Institute of MIT and Harvard and the University of California, Berkeley, traded oral arguments in the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in Washington on Monday (April 30). It is the latest round litigation of an ongoing patent dispute. The Broad Institute holds patents on the gene editing technology known as CRISPR, and attorneys for UC Berkeley have been challenging the claim for more than a year.  UC Berkeley filed a patent application based on its work with CRISPR in May 2012, and the Broad Institute followed suit in December of that year. In April 2014, the Broad Institute was granted the first of several patents for its use of CRISPR, and attorneys for UC Berkeley quickly contested it with the US Patent and Trademark Office. The Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) ruled in favor of the Broad Institute in February 2017, saying its patents present “no interference of fact,” meaning they are sufficiently distinct from those applied for by UC Berkeley that they should not be overturned. On Monday, lawyers for UC Berkeley argued that the PTAB made a “legal error” in that ruling. They argued that the appeals court should either reverse the board’s decision or send it back to the PTAB for further consideration.
This has been an ongoing legal battle for so long now. I understand that people want to make money and hold intellectual rights when it comes to new scientific discoveries. I think that the people really need to be working together more than fighting over patents. I get that everyone is not going to hold hands and sign along with each other but if you discovered anything its because you used others information to help you get smarter and if were are all working together the field of science can achieve even greater things than it has in the past. 
https://www.the-scientist.com/?articles.view/articleNo/52473/title/CRISPR-Patent-Dispute-Heard-in-Federal-Court/
https://www.nature.com/news/bitter-crispr-patent-war-intensifies-1.22892

Karina Vetrano: Wider Police Use of DNA Database

Wider Police Use of the DNA Database 

As we have been discussing in class lately, DNA database examination has been in the news in wake of the Karina Vetrano case. Familial searching is using the DNA database to find relatives of people who have been charged with a crime. The argument is that if there is no exact match in the database, that a search should be conducted to find close relatives of the suspect. The state of New York does not authorize this method. Both officials involved in the case and Vetrano’s parents have advocated for the implementation of familial searching. The other side of the argument defends the idea of this being an invasion of privacy of innocent people, or even more seriously, someone being wrongfully acquitted based on the results of familial searching.

This article mentions other cases, such as that of the “Grim-Sleeper” in Los Angeles, CA, that led to an arrest because of the information familial searching had come up with. I believe that this technique should be authorized nation wide. Too often murder cases go unsolved even though we have the tools and technology to solve them right in the palm of our hands. Even when I put myself in the shoes of someone related to a possible suspect, I would feel as though I am facilitating the justice system… I would not be angry or frustrated with “having my privacy invaded”.

Check out this video of Vetrano's mother at the DNA hearing.

Generic Version of Copaxone, Multiple Sclerosis Drug, Is Approved

          On Thursday, the generic substitute for Copaxone has been approved by the FDA. Copaxone is a drug used for multiple sclerosis. In the last several years, the prices for drugs geared towards multiple sclerosis have tripled, even as more brand-name products appear in the market. A generic option would give a pricing edge, but this depends on the price and date it will go on sale. The price of all drugs drop about 90% when there are multiple generic options; however, since there is only one, the discount will not be as drastic. None of the drugs that treat multiple sclerosis have a generic equivalent. Multiple sclerosis is a nerve condition that causes blurred vision and difficulty walking. Teva manufacturers Copaxone, a brand name, when it usually manufactures generic drugs. Teva has used some aggressive plans to keep their wide consumer base. Teva has called and took their patients out to dinner, created a more concentrated drug to decrease the number of injections per week, and lowered the price. How Copaxone works is not clear; however, it is known that the main drug in there is made up of 4 amino acids. When the generic drug is released, some insurance companies may recommend that the patients try the generic brand before the name brand. Teva currently has a patent on Copaxone until September 1st, but the federal court invalidated it. They took their case to the Supreme Court for reevaluation, and the generic drug will have to wait in accordance to the court's descision or until September. Other companies, such as Myland and Synthon, are trying to get the approval for their generic Copaxone versions.
         I think it is great that the first generic drug for multiple sclerosis is almost available to the public. The prices for name-brand drugs are extremely pricey, and I personally always look for a generic brand. Competition will bring an economically beneficial solution for the people who really need the drug. They could the used the money save on other operations or medications.

Original: Link1
Supplemental: Link2