The terms, per the grant. On March 9, 2021, the Massachusetts Institute of Technology was issued US10941395B2, “Method for gene editing.” The CPC tags — C12N 15/102 (introducing DNA into cells), A61K 48/005 (gene therapy preparations), and the C12N 2750/14143 AAV-delivery series — combine the edit and the way it is delivered, which is exactly what makes a method grant valuable as a license.

What the independent claim actually fences off is a delivery architecture, and the architecture is the point for a platform deal. Claim 1 covers a method of inducing gene repair by administering three things in defined vehicles: "one or more guide RNA (gRNA)" and "a repair template," both "provided in a same or different viral vector," together with "a CRISPR-Cas system comprising a Cas mRNA…provided in a lipid nanoparticle." The claim splits the payload — guide and template by virus, the Cas enzyme by LNP — which is a specific, ownable way of getting an edit into a cell, not the abstract idea of CRISPR repair.

Why a business desk values a method grant: in gene editing, the deals that move money are platform licenses, and platform licenses are written around method-and-delivery IP that applies across many disease targets. An institutional grant like this is the kind of asset a company in-licenses to give its programs freedom to operate and a defensible base.

“The present disclosure relates to compositions and methods for modifying a gene sequence, and for systems for delivering such compositions.”— U.S. Patent No. 10,941,395 source

The dependent claims define how broadly the method reaches across targets — the breadth that determines a platform license's royalty base. The viral vector can be "adeno-associated virus (AAV), adenovirus, retrovirus, and lentivirus vectors" (claim 2), and the repair template can be "a DNA repair template, an mRNA repair template, a sRNA repair template, an miRNA repair template, and an antisense oligonucleotide repair template" (claim 3). The guide can hybridize "to a target sequence associated with a genetic disease or disorder or a cancer" (claim 4), with named indications including "hemophilia, cystic fibrosis, or sickle cell disease" (claim 6). A method that spans four vector classes, five repair-template types and a broad indication set is the kind of asset whose license collects across a wide pipeline.

The grant also specifies the LNP chemistry and quantified delivery behavior, which is what makes a method claim hard to design around. The lipid nanoparticle "comprises cKK-E12" (claim 10), optionally with "1,2-dioleoyl-sn-glycero-3-phosphoethanolamine (DOPE) and cholesterol C14-PEG2000" (claim 11). The method claims a transient-expression window — the Cas system "expressed in the target tissue for no more than about two months per administration" (claim 19) with the guide "expressed…for at least 2 weeks" (claim 20) — and a defined editing rate of "about 1% to about 10% of a population of cells in a target tissue" (claims 9, 21). A second independent claim, claim 12, reaches the same split-delivery method for "modifying a target nucleotide sequence in a target tissue," underscoring that the right is over the delivery system, not a single disease.

The structure point: a method-plus-delivery grant supports a different deal shape than a single-target grant. It can carry a platform royalty that collects across a licensee's whole pipeline, plus milestones per program. For a model, that distinction is the difference between a narrow and a broad royalty base — and a grant that names the vector classes, the LNP lipid, the expression window and the editing rate gives both sides a concrete map of what the platform license covers.

What the grant does not promise: a product, a clinical result, or a clear path around the foundational CRISPR patents held by others. It is an exclusivity claim on a method, and method claims still have to coexist with the broader editing IP thicket.

The reason a dual-vehicle delivery method anchors a platform license is that delivery, not the cut itself, is the hard and broadly reusable problem in gene editing. Getting a guide, a repair template and the editing enzyme into the right cells, in the right amounts, for the right duration, is what separates a benchtop result from a usable medicine, and a method that solves it applies across many disease targets. This grant claims a specific split: guide and repair template "provided in a same or different viral vector" while the "Cas mRNA" travels "in a lipid nanoparticle" (claim 1). Splitting the payload across a viral vector and an LNP is an ownable architecture, and because the same architecture works regardless of which gene is being repaired, it is the kind of asset whose license collects across a licensee's whole pipeline.

The dependent claims set both the breadth and the boundaries that a platform royalty is calculated against. Breadth comes from the menu of vehicles and payloads: four viral-vector classes including AAV, adenovirus, retrovirus and lentivirus (claim 2), and five repair-template types from DNA to antisense oligonucleotide (claim 3), applied across genetic disease, disorder or cancer (claim 4) with named indications such as hemophilia, cystic fibrosis and sickle cell disease (claim 6). The boundaries come from the chemistry and kinetics: an LNP that "comprises cKK-E12" (claim 10), optionally with DOPE and cholesterol C14-PEG2000 (claim 11); a transient-expression window in which the Cas system persists "for no more than about two months per administration" (claim 19) and the guide "for at least 2 weeks" (claim 20); and a claimed editing rate of "about 1% to about 10% of a population of cells in a target tissue" (claims 9 and 21). The second independent claim (claim 12) re-states the split-delivery method for modifying a target sequence generally, confirming that the right is over the delivery system rather than a single disease. For a model, that combination of wide applicability and specific, named operating parameters is what makes the grant simultaneously broad enough to support a platform royalty and concrete enough to license without ambiguity.

The takeaway: when pricing a gene-editing platform deal, read the method-and-delivery grants as the load-bearing assets. MIT's March 2021 editing grant is a dated, concrete example of the institutional IP that platform licenses are built around — specified down to the LNP lipid and the dual-vehicle delivery split.