In 1998, Michael Heller and Rebecca Eisenberg famously pronounced that, when compared with the tragedy of the commons, ‘the recent proliferation of intellectual property rights in biomedical research suggests a different tragedy, an “anticommons” in which people underuse scarce resources because too many owners can block each other’ ((1998) 290 Science 698-701). Over the years that followed, empirical research showed that many strategies were employed to prevent the anticommons from emerging, including ignoring offending patents, entering into licensing arrangements, and engaging in more collaborative arrangements including patent pools and clearing house mechanisms. Court challenges (particularly those involving Myriad Genetics’ BRCA patents) and legislative amendments assisted in averting anticommons risks. Despite this, some 20 years later, Jorge Contreras claimed that the threat of an anticommons remained real ((2018) 361 Science 335-337). As yet, however, it remains unproven. In this presentation we examine the intellectual property landscape in the emergent field of genome editing, positing that we may be on the cusp of an anticommons in this important new field of biomedicine. Relevant features that we will highlight include complex patent and commercial landscapes, restrictive licensing arrangements and highly adversarial judicial proceedings. The risk is that patient access to the benefits of genome editing technology could be denied, delayed or made financially unviable. We end by suggesting some of the ways that this anticommons effect could be forestalled.