November 10, 2021 Andrew Burke, Ph.D. Senior Technology Transfer Manager, NCI Technology Transfer Center, Email: firstname.lastname@example.org. Re: Prospective Grant of an Exclusive Patent License: Development and Commercialization of CRISPR-Engineered T Cell Therapies for the Treatment of Cancer to Neogene Therapeutics… Continue Reading
PDF version of letter to NIH. Failure2disclose-Doudna-patents-12oct2020 October 12, 2020 Michelle Bulls Director Office of Policy for Extramural Research Administration (OPERA) National Institutes of Health Via Email: email@example.com RE: Failures to disclose government funding associated with patents related to “Methods… Continue Reading
DATE: Thursday, 6 December 2018 TIME: 1:30 PM to 3 PM VENUE: Room B CONVENER: Knowledge Ecology International (KEI) Knowledge Ecology International (KEI) cordially invites you to attend our side event during negotiations of the 29th Session of the Standing… Continue Reading
We have several pages related specifically to the U.S. Bayh-Dole Act here. KEI efforts to address pricing and other public interest issues in more than 30 different NIH licensing cases, involving both patents and data rights, are here: http://keionline.org/nih-licenses KEI… Continue Reading
Workshop: Patents, the Public Interest and Two New Medical Technologies: Clustered Regularly Interspaced Short Palindromic Repeats (CRISPR), Chimeric Antigen Receptors (CAR) technologies
On September 15th, 2017, Knowledge Ecology International will be hosting a workshop on: “Patents, the Public Interest and Two New Medical Technologies: CRISPR and CAR T.”
If you are unable to attend in person, a livestream of the event will be available here
On June 6, 2017, KEI wrote to Dr. Thomas Price, Secretary of Health and Human Services (HHS), and Dr. Francis S. Collins, Director of the National Institutes of Health (NIH) requesting the HHS develop a policy on the licensing of federally-funded CRISPR patented inventions. A copy of our letter is available here: /node/2801.
February 15, 2017, the USPTO ruled that 12 genome-editing CRISPR-Cas9 patents and one patent application assigned to the Broad Institute of Harvard and MIT did not interfere with a patent application from scientists at the University of California. A copy of the ruling is available here.
Following the ruling by the USPTO that the Broad Institute and the University of California both issued statements, as did several firms with an interest in the dispute.