CRISPR DD that's not only lazy, but also manages to stack a few levels of uncertainly, meaning only a fool would give this any credence...

There's a decent amount of money invested in CRISPR-based genome editing tech, and this older DD post covers the general ideas pretty well. That previous post touches on the IP battle (and I weigh in here), and I'm writing today to remind you that this shit still isn't settled. This recent article discusses the state of things, with Team Broad/MIT bickering with Team CVC about who did what, when, and which matters more. The USPTO royally fucked up by granting two patents for essentially the same invention: the "single guide RNA" at the heart of CRISPR-based genome editing. This is an issue that must be resolved because right now it's in IP limbo - not good. USPTO doesn't typically hire WSBers, but sometimes one of you will slip through the cracks. When the IP battle is settled, one side will win, and the other will fall. There's also a possibility of a "patent pool" - basically a truce that lets them split rights/profits - but so much money and vitriol has been invested that it doesn't look like any peace is forthcoming. Below I'll make my forecast regarding who's likely to win, but only a moron would pretend they know this with any certainty. Let's first introduce the players: Team Broad/MIT $EDIT Editas - These guys are "ahead" in the patent battle, but they have not been very successful in the clinic. They bet on curing a rare form of blindness, probably getting all jazzed up on the headlines they imagined: biotech company lets the blind see. But their first clinical trial had underwhelming results, and their stock tanked once the data were unveiled. Not the best. I'm not super optimistic about anything else these guys are working on. In short (pun absolutely intended), the science isn't strong here so if the IP battle goes south they're utterly fucked. $BEAM Beam Therapeutics - This company is based on a CRISPR variant called "base editing" that has some likely safety advantages and is better at fixing fucked up genes, as opposed to just killing troublemaker genes. They'll be in the clinic soon, and are only lagging because it's a younger company / newer technology. As great as this tech is, they rely on the Broad/MIT IP for their fundamental CRISPR tech, so if the IP outcome goes against them, they'll probably take a hit. But they'll probably fare much better than $EDIT. Team CVC $NTLA Intellia - This company actually cured people, and they used nanoparticles (like for mRNA vaccines) to administer the CRISPR enzymes. They started with a rare disease but should be able to pivot towards genetic tweaks of the liver that can lower your risk of heart disease. Basically a one-time genetic surgery that does the job of statins (and then some?). $CRSP CRISPR Therapeutics - This company also cured dozens of people of their hemoglobinopathies, such as sickle cell disease. Truly life-changing, miraculous stuff. The catch is that so far they had to do it via a complicated and expensive transplantation procedure. So it's not very clear how profitable they'll be in the long term. They have other stuff in their portfolio as well, though, so they're not exactly up shit creek. Who would I bet on? I would definitely bet on Team CVC, and short Team Broad/MIT - specifically $EDIT. The juicy semi-recent news is that a scientist on Team Broad/MIT got subpoenaed and actually testified that Broad/MIT lifted a core technology from CVC (even though their patent filing said otherwise). This whistleblower scientist was already the source of some older drama - Broad/MIT tried to retroactively remove him as an inventor (presumably because he wouldn't take part in the cover-up) which caused Broad/MIT to have their patent tossed in the trash when it was considered by the European patent office. I think the truth will eventually come out, and Team Broad/MIT is going to take a cataclysmic hit once the IP is eventually handed to Team CVC. The big catch? Nobody has any fucking clue when the hammer will fall. From the article I linked above: "PTAB did not make any decision at the end of the proceeding, nor did the judges indicate when they would issue an opinion." Even when the big decision arrives, it will inevitably be appealed, which dampens the finality (and impact) of any one decision from the USPTO. But still - this whole situation is teeming with potential for the sort of breakneck swings in value you perverts live for, so consider yourself notified. Good luck, and sincere apologies to anyone who makes any decisions based on anything I've said here. Edit: honorable mentions to two relevant companies noted in the comments below: $VERV and $CRBU

back

CRISPR DD that's not only lazy, but also manages to stack a few levels of uncertainly, meaning only a fool would give this any credence...

bullish

There's a decent amount of money invested in CRISPR-based genome editing tech, and this older DD post covers the general ideas pretty well.

That previous post touches on the IP battle (and I weigh in here), and I'm writing today to remind you that this shit still isn't settled. This recent article discusses the state of things, with Team Broad/MIT bickering with Team CVC about who did what, when, and which matters more. The USPTO royally fucked up by granting two patents for essentially the same invention: the "single guide RNA" at the heart of CRISPR-based genome editing. This is an issue that must be resolved because right now it's in IP limbo - not good. USPTO doesn't typically hire WSBers, but sometimes one of you will slip through the cracks.

When the IP battle is settled, one side will win, and the other will fall. There's also a possibility of a "patent pool" - basically a truce that lets them split rights/profits - but so much money and vitriol has been invested that it doesn't look like any peace is forthcoming. Below I'll make my forecast regarding who's likely to win, but only a moron would pretend they know this with any certainty. Let's first introduce the players:

Team Broad/MIT
$EDIT Editas - These guys are "ahead" in the patent battle, but they have not been very successful in the clinic. They bet on curing a rare form of blindness, probably getting all jazzed up on the headlines they imagined: biotech company lets the blind see. But their first clinical trial had underwhelming results, and their stock tanked once the data were unveiled. Not the best. I'm not super optimistic about anything else these guys are working on. In short (pun absolutely intended), the science isn't strong here so if the IP battle goes south they're utterly fucked.

$BEAM Beam Therapeutics - This company is based on a CRISPR variant called "base editing" that has some likely safety advantages and is better at fixing fucked up genes, as opposed to just killing troublemaker genes. They'll be in the clinic soon, and are only lagging because it's a younger company / newer technology. As great as this tech is, they rely on the Broad/MIT IP for their fundamental CRISPR tech, so if the IP outcome goes against them, they'll probably take a hit. But they'll probably fare much better than $EDIT.

Team CVC
$NTLA Intellia - This company actually cured people, and they used nanoparticles (like for mRNA vaccines) to administer the CRISPR enzymes. They started with a rare disease but should be able to pivot towards genetic tweaks of the liver that can lower your risk of heart disease. Basically a one-time genetic surgery that does the job of statins (and then some?).

$CRSP CRISPR Therapeutics - This company also cured dozens of people of their hemoglobinopathies, such as sickle cell disease. Truly life-changing, miraculous stuff. The catch is that so far they had to do it via a complicated and expensive transplantation procedure. So it's not very clear how profitable they'll be in the long term. They have other stuff in their portfolio as well, though, so they're not exactly up shit creek.

Who would I bet on? I would definitely bet on Team CVC, and short Team Broad/MIT - specifically $EDIT. The juicy semi-recent news is that a scientist on Team Broad/MIT got subpoenaed and actually testified that Broad/MIT lifted a core technology from CVC (even though their patent filing said otherwise). This whistleblower scientist was already the source of some older drama - Broad/MIT tried to retroactively remove him as an inventor (presumably because he wouldn't take part in the cover-up) which caused Broad/MIT to have their patent tossed in the trash when it was considered by the European patent office. I think the truth will eventually come out, and Team Broad/MIT is going to take a cataclysmic hit once the IP is eventually handed to Team CVC.

The big catch? Nobody has any fucking clue when the hammer will fall. From the article I linked above: "PTAB did not make any decision at the end of the proceeding, nor did the judges indicate when they would issue an opinion." Even when the big decision arrives, it will inevitably be appealed, which dampens the finality (and impact) of any one decision from the USPTO. But still - this whole situation is teeming with potential for the sort of breakneck swings in value you perverts live for, so consider yourself notified. Good luck, and sincere apologies to anyone who makes any decisions based on anything I've said here.

Edit: honorable mentions to two relevant companies noted in the comments below: $VERV and $CRBU

read-time
3 min
110.00
Target Price
8/ 10
Confidence
1-2 Months
Timeframe
catalyst icon
Earnings Release
catalyst icon
News
catalyst icon
SEC
Filing
catalyst icon
Sentiment
catalyst icon
Other Catalyst

Access the latest tools and discussion channels with an account

reddit-sentiment

Reddit Sentiment
Analysis

portfolio-balancer

Portfolio Balancer
with brokerages

sec-dashboard

SEC Dashboard
with NLP

*/}aiodd-ad
next