That could allow for the development of new disease treatments that would fix defective genes in the human body. Crispr could also make it more practical to alter the DNA of human embryos, making changes that could be passed to future generations.

An influential national advisory panel said on Tuesday that such heritable changes should be allowed only in the narrowest of circumstances, to prevent infants from acquiring genes that would cause serious diseases, and only when there was no alternative.

If Crispr lives up to its promise, the patents on the technique could be worth hundreds of millions of dollars, or even more. However, related techniques, such as gene therapy and RNA interference, have also been described as having great promise and have resulted in few or no medical treatments so far.

Several companies are trying to develop medical treatments using Crispr, although they are in the early stage of development.

The stock of Editas Medicine, which holds licenses to the Broad patents, shot up nearly 30 percent on Wednesday. By contrast, shares of Intellia Therapeutics and Crispr Therapeutics, which have licenses to the intellectual property from Dr. Doudna and her colleagues, each fell nearly 10 percent.

Those two companies, and others, may now have to negotiate licenses to the Broad patents, most likely by paying fees and royalties. It is rare in the medical field for one patent holder to block another party from bringing a medical treatment to market.

There have been some exceptions, such as Amgen’s current effort to block a rival cholesterol-lowering drug. But the Broad Institute and the University of California have given every indication that they want Crispr to be applied widely for public benefit, so the ruling on Wednesday is unlikely to slow down research.