Creative Commons vs patent for recombinant DNA

Question

Let's say an idealistic grad student constructs a novel recombinant DNA vector - e.g. plasmid or virus - and publishes the method under a Creative Commons attribution-non-commercial-share-alike license on a personal website or blog without his or her advisor's knowledge. (Which would be a really stupid thing to do, but that's beside the point for now.) Then the advisor, who's also part of a biotech company, submits a patent for the vector with the intention of producing and selling it commercially. Which would apply, the CC license or the patent?

Answer 1

I'd probably say Patent.. ANd then later possibly CC? not sure tho

Answer 2

Call the Intellectual Property lawyers - this is gonna get VERY messy. The party that provided the financial, material and institutional support to create the invention is almost always given the priority as the "Rights Holder" as oppose to the actual inventor (not the fairest). CC licenses are rarely taken seriously by the court system.