(A summary of the key motions in the PTAB proceedings is available. Discover world-changing science. In the United States, Broad has been allowed or granted 31 CRISPR patents, including 26 patents for CRISPR-Cas9, as well as 3 for CRISPR-Cas12/Cpf1. We dissect crucial discoveries. In China, patents are subject to invalidation proceedings after they are issued. It is time for all institutions to move beyond litigation and instead work together to ensure wide, open access to this transformative technology. As in an appeal of a criminal case, this appeal is all about the law and whether the patent office interpreted and applied it correctly; there won’t be any dramatic new evidence. UCB appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, which ruled in Broad’s favor in 2018. Updated September 27, 2020communications@broadinstitute.org. (In this case, the Broad, MIT, and Harvard inventions go back to 2011.). The losing side will have at least 60 days to appeal to the Supreme Court, which would decide sometime after October whether or not to take the case. Instead, UC casts baseless claims [see below] at the Broad patents and inventors in the hope of avoiding having to provide any actual evidence of UC’s work in eukaryotic cells. Noonan said UC “has some heavy lifting to do,” especially since a Supreme Court decision said “the federal circuit has to give deference to the factual determinations” of a panel like PTAB. These components and methods have since become the leading standard for genome editing worldwide. The University of California (UC) has received good news on a patent … In 2017, we joined discussions to create a non-exclusive joint licensing pool coordinated by MPEG LA. This is the same argument that has already failed to persuade the PTAB and Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, and the facts have not changed. These include the fundamental claims in EP 2825654B1, as well as others covering certain key therapeutic indications -- including for previously untreatable diseases. In 2014, we developed the Inclusive Innovation Model -- which allows a primary licensee to devote sufficient investment to develop CRISPR-based genome editing technology to treat human diseases, while supporting broad development of medicines to reach many patients. In December, 2012, Broad requested “accelerated examination” of its application and paid the standard $70 fee. The filing is the latest development in a high-stakes legal battle that will decide who was the first to make CRISPR genome editing work in eukaryotes. 61/652,086); and. These claims did not succeed in the last interference; they will not succeed now. (A summary of the key motions in the PTAB proceedings is available here and the CAFC ruling is available here.). We welcome this action by the PTAB, which has previously ruled that the claims of the Broad patents, issued for methods for eukaryotic genome editing, were properly granted. It is deeply unfortunate, for the entire field, that the University of California-Berkeley has chosen this strategy. The Senior Party is presumed to be the “first to invent,” and the Junior Party carries the burden of proof. In April, 2014, the USPTO granted US Patent No. The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) agreed this week to resolve the competing claims for the discovery of the revolutionary tool. Instead, UC will have to persuade the judges that the patent board ignored evidence, that its decision was not based on what a reasonable person would consider “substantial evidence,” or that it misapplied the law on obviousness or expectation of success. This further underscores the significance of Broad’s prior claims. (Read the order and declaration.) For seven years, we have made many attempts to engage University of California-Berkeley, directly and through their exclusive licensee and through patent pools. Q: Why is the patent landscape different around the world? In April, 2014, the USPTO granted US Patent No. Syndicate this story - click here to enquire about using this story. Zhang was the first to file a patent application, on December 12, 2012, that described and enabled such a method. The US Patent and Trademark Office had issued more than 570 patents as of September 2020 with claims to CRISPR and/or Cas9 to approximately 900 inventors from more than 200 applicant organizations. Which Groups Are Most at Risk from the Coronavirus? The University of California-Berkeley repeats the same false claims that it made in the last interference. UC’s lawyers “won’t whip out a document and say aha!” said biotech patent attorney Kevin Noonan of McDonnell Boehnen Hulbert & Berghoff. UCB has also been issued CRISPR patents in Europe. by Broad Communications In addition, there have been more than 9,200 applications filed (and published but not yet granted) around the world. The PTAB rejected CVC’s request that its priority date be May 25, 2012, writing “the CVC inventors’ comments tend to indicate that they did not have possession of a functional CRISPR-Cas9 system in eukaryotic cells” at that time. On Monday morning in Washington, D.C., the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit will hear oral arguments in University of California v. Broad Institute. How did we get here? If it’s judges Alan Lourie, who spent decades as a corporate patent lawyer, or Timothy Dyk, also an ex-corporate guy and patent expert, that might be good for UC and therefore Intellia (NTLA), co-founded by Doudna and exclusive licensee of her (yet-to-be-issued) CRISPR patents.