Seems like there's a question whether the patent should have been awarded in the first place:
It is not possible to patent a natural process, and both Crispr
and Cas9 are natural, at least in bacteria. Putting both together
and showing how the molecular complex can be used in mammalian
cells was the key “inventive step” that the Broad Institute
believes swayed the US patent office – but not before the
institute instigated a “fast track” patent application to the
chagrin of Berkeley’s patent lawyers.
To me this is no different than patenting combining anything with a computer like booking hotels on a computer or reading news with a computer. I also still think that combining two things that themselves are not patentable should not be patentable. When it comes to discoveries in a university setting none of the work should ever be patentable at all.
