Takeda spinoff GenAhead Bio inks partnership with ERS Genomics on CRISPR/Cas9 patents

Gene Editing
Takeda spinoff GenAhead Bio has inked a license deal to access ERS Genomics’ CRISPR/Cas9 patents for genome editing technology. (Irvine/NIST)

Takeda biotech spinoff GenAhead Bio has inked a nonexclusive license deal to access ERS Genomics’ CRISPR/Cas9 patents for genome editing technology. 

Ireland-based ERS holds the rights to the foundational CRISPR/Cas9 patent portfolio from Emmanuelle Charpentier, Ph.D., co-inventor of the technology, the company said. Charpentier and molecular biologist Jennifer Doudna, Ph.D., co-authored a 2012 scientific paper on the gene editing technique and a subsequent patent application.

Terms of the agreement weren’t disclosed.

Your Daily Newsletter — Free

Enjoying this story? Subscribe to FierceBiotech!

Biopharma is a fast-growing world where big ideas come along every day. Our subscribers rely on FierceBiotech as their must-read source for the latest news, analysis and data in the world of biotech and pharma R&D. To read on the go, sign up today to get biotech news and updates delivered right to your inbox!

GenAhead, which is based in Fujisawa City, Japan, was formed earlier this year as a spinoff from Takeda and is focused on developing a dominant genome editing service.

“Following the issuance in May of our first Japanese patent with very broad and fundamental claims covering CRISPR/Cas9 technology, we have been excited to work with companies like GenAhead to help them build a foundation for commercial and scientific success,” Eric Rhodes, chief executive of ERS, said in a statement. “ERS has a goal of making the CRISPR/Cas9 technology as broadly accessible as possible to all groups for commercial applications.”

A patent battle in the U.S. over the technology erupted in 2017 but ended last month when a federal appeals court handed the Broad Institute a win when it ruled there was “no interference-in-fact” between CRISPR patents held by the Broad and patents sought by the University of California.

That decision affirmed a decision by a U.S. patent board in 2017 that the Broad’s patents did not “interfere” with those applied for by the university, which appealed that decision.