This is already done, and currently disputed patent is not as important as the article claims. Quoting from <a href="http:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.ipscell.com&#x2F;2016&#x2F;01&#x2F;patent-expert-weighs-in-on-crispr-dispute-between-uc-broad&#x2F;" rel="nofollow">http:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.ipscell.com&#x2F;2016&#x2F;01&#x2F;patent-expert-weighs-in-on-cr...</a><p>Q. Are there elements to this patent situation that most people are overlooking?<p>A. Probably the most important thing that people are overlooking is the scope of the claimed subject material of the Doudna patent application (and also the Zhang patents in question); only Cas9 is claimed. The claims do not cover other nucleases that could work with CRISPR (such as Zhang’s recently published Cpf1, which is &quot;smaller and easier to program than Cas9&quot;) and thus would not exclude someone from using other nucleases.