Intellectual Property Insights from Fishman Stewart
Mini Article – Volume 25, Issue 10
Share on Social

Direwolves are de-extinct. Will we soon have patent pending pterodactyls?
By Kristyn Webb
We may soon live again alongside species that we haven’t shared the planet with for thousands of years. Recently, a company named Colossal has gone public with what they say is the de-extinction of a species of direwolf. Direwolves have been extinct for almost thirteen thousand years. Using gene editing tools like CRISPR, they have mapped the genome of the direwolf which they have recovered from DNA that was locked inside the remains of long dead members of the species. Using this map, they isolated genes in the DNA of the grey wolf in order to produce a specimen which is similar enough to the direwolf for the sample to be considered a direwolf and not a grey wolf.
CRISPR works by having RNA mimic a certain DNA strand and guiding a specific protein to that strand. The protein then “snips” the target DNA like a pair of molecular scissors. As the DNA repairs itself it can be modified in order to effect a change in the organism on a broad scale. When CRISPR, (an acronym for Clustered Regularly Interspaced Short Palindromic Repeats) won the Nobel Prize in 2020 for curing sickle cell anemia it revolutionized the process of gene therapy.
The practical application of DNA manipulation can have dramatic effects not only for the organism in question, but also for the environment. Currently Colossal is working on bringing back the woolly mammoth which has been extinct for roughly four thousand years. Like the modern day beaver, woolly mammoths once had the ability to drastically affect their environment. Beavers create wetlands, alter the flow of rivers and streams, and make lakes deeper, allowing a greater variety of fish and other animals to call it home. Comparatively, some believe woolly mammoths could turn the tundra into a steppe environment by trampling the terrain and keeping the growth of trees to a minimum. Grasslands reflect more light than forests do and so the absence of trees in the region keeps the ground temperature colder. There is also a massive amount of carbon dioxide that is locked in the permafrost-—up to double what is currently in our atmosphere. One proposed solution to rising global temperatures is to reintroduce mammoths to the Arctic, which would in turn protect the permafrost from thawing and releasing greenhouse gasses.
In the US, naturally occurring DNA cannot be patented, but altered DNA can be patentable because it doesn’t occur naturally. This raises many legal questions. If genetically modified animals, with patented DNA, are released into the wild, would their offspring be covered under the patent? Who would own these animals, nature or Colossal?
Colossal says they don’t intend to monetize the mammoth, which they describe as an Arctic elephant-mammoth hybrid. But will there come a time when Colossal, or others, will monetize genetically modified animals? So far, the animals identified as candidates for de-extinction are either animals mankind has hunted to extinction or animals which can theoretically improve the environment. But there remains the possibility that this technology will deviate from altruistic goals, to profit-seeking. Colossal has announced plans to resurrect the thylacine and the Dodo bird. Will they recreate dinosaurs if given the chance?
Will we, in time, be able to purchase pygmy baby wooly mammoths as household pets? Will we resurrect Neanderthals? Will we ever get to feel like John Hammond just showed us a dinosaur because we’re actually looking at a dinosaur? Will megalodons make seafaring more dangerous? Will humans be at risk of contracting new illnesses, like pterodactyl flu?
While the possibilities are seemingly endless, some things remain certain. For example, we all know what happens if you cross an octopus with a cow: your funding will be pulled immediately and you will receive a visit from the ethics review board.
Kristyn Webb is an attorney with Fishman Stewart’s Copyright Practice Group, and holds a master’s degree in copyright law from King’s College London.

Related Content from Fishman Stewart
By 1930, efforts began in New York to replace Mother's Day with Parent's Day because men were more than just breadwinners. Those efforts didn't catch on, probably because in that era, women often spent more time in the home.
In February, Nike and Skims announced that they will be working together on a new brand, NikeSkims. The co-brand will create a new line of training apparel, footwear, and accessories specifically designed to meet the unique needs of women athletes.
Generally, federal courts have exclusive jurisdiction over copyright cases, and often, this presents an insurmountable paywall for individual artists and small businesses to vindicate their rights, especially where the value of the individual copyrighted works are relatively low.
Dedicated to raising public awareness about the importance of encouraging innovation and creativity throughout the world, the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) annually observes World Intellectual Property Day on April 26 to showcase the role that patents, trademarks, industrial designs, copyrights and trade secrets play in our everyday lives.
Hold onto your foam fingers, sports fans – college sports just got a whole lot more interesting! The latest updates to Name, Image, and Likeness (NIL) rules are making student-athletes bigger than ever, and it’s not just about the game anymore.
Did a federal court in Louisiana recently decide that US copyrights are global rights? It seems so.
One of his most famous songs, “Lose Yourself” was recently at the center of a lawsuit. In 2019, Eminem’s publishing company Eight Mile Style sued Spotify claiming that Spotify streamed a number of its musical compositions without proper licenses.
One of the most common challenges is whether AI should be free to train on data that is protected by copyright and owned by third parties without first obtaining permission.
The U.S. Copyright Office (USCO) recently published its latest report on AI and “copyrightability.” In short, the USCO considers only some AI-generated works to be sufficiently creative as to deserve copyright protection, and thus, registration.
Back in the 1940’s assignments by independent contractors could be permanent and irrevocable. Things changed in 1976, when Congress overhauled the Copyright Act.
IDENTIFYING, SECURING AND ADVANCING CREATIVITY®
