The US patent office declares an interference between the intellectual property held by the Broad Institute and several patent applications filed by the University of California—opposite its previous ruling.

Changing policy has left academics uncertain about what is legal for foreign involvement in research, and increased hostility and bureaucracy have led students and scholars to seek opportunities elsewhere.

Scientists argue that anti-Chinese political rhetoric and policies could harm US research.

The higher court’s decision to uphold the ruling of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board essentially ends the intellectual property battle in the US.

The proposed limitations stem from fears of intellectual property theft.

In efforts to translate basic-science results into pharmaceuticals and other technologies, success cannot be taken for granted.

The battle for the control of the intellectual property surrounding CRISPR-Cas9 is as storied and nuanced as the technology itself.

The University of California files a brief in its appeal challenging the ruling that the Broad Institute’s group would retain its CRISPR genome-editing patent.

The European Patent Office will grant patent rights over the use of CRISPR in all cell types to a University of California team, contrasting with a recent decision in the U.S.