This paper examines the impact of ordre public and morality on government regulation of gene editing patents in the United States and the European Union. A discussion of ordre public and morality requires an understanding first of the separate meanings of ordre public and morality, then how and why ordre public and morality are often used in conjunction when referencing laws that pertain to ordre public and morality. The answers are not always clear, as domestic customs, codes of conduct, and laws vary internationally and among states and territories. Intellectual property laws refer to ordre public and morality in the Paris Agreement, TRIPS agreement, European Patent Convention, and Patent Cooperation treaty for the determination of invention patentability. Typically, countries which are adherents and signatories to these agreements have enacted laws which state that violations of ordre public and morality warrant the exclusion of inventions for patent eligibility. Although the United States is an example of a nation which does not require compliance with ordre public and morality provisions for patent awards, overwhelmingly, countries which are adherents and signatories to these international and regional agreements strive to uphold their ordre public and morality provisions when considering domestic inventions for patents. Governments should work to ensure that all members of society have equal access to developments in medical technology – including genetic technology (gene editing and genetic engineering). According to Article 1 of the Universal Declaration on the Human Genome and Human Rights (UDHGHR), DNA constitutes a type of institutional memory of the biology of humankind. By tampering with the human genome, this historical memory can become compromised. This is another reason why some form of societal regulation of genetic engineering and CRISPR gene editing on a collective level is critical. Neither governments nor private entities should have the right to exclusively own, profit from, or exploit genetic information in its natural state. This includes monopolization of ownership of the information through patenting. Scholars and experts postulate, however, that genetic material should be freely accessible.As inventors increase their pursuit of gene editing patents, the likelihood of monopoly behavior may increase. Thus, market and economic forces that favor patent holders cannot predominate the need for accessibility to CRISPR-Cas9 gene editing technology. It is for this reason that prioritization and balancing of research, clinical, ethical, and societal goals is important to maintain a healthy marketplace for innovation in gene editing patents. Moreover, a balance must be achieved between championing ordre public and morality and promoting innovation of gene editing technology. On the other hand, excessive regulation of gene editing technology can be detrimental to innovation
