The PTAB decides there is no interference-in-fact

After hearing motions from both parties, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) rules that there was no interference-in-fact. The board decides that the Broad’s claims to the use of CRISPR-Cas9 gene editing in eukaryotic cells are patentably distinct from the broader claims of the Doudna-Charpentier team.

This decision terminates the interference at what is known as the motions phase, before the PTAB would have considered other motions or evaluated the evidence to determine who was first to invent CRISPR-Cas9 gene editing (this second phase is known as the priority phase).


Download the PTAB Decision on Motions


Sign up to receive updates from the CRISPR Collective

Related News

U.S. Patent and Trademark Office issued U.S. Patent No. 10,266,850 (‘the ‘850 patent), to The Regents of the University of California, the University of Vienna, and Dr. Emmanuelle Charpentier
European Patent Office (EPO) awarded the Doudna-Charpentier team a broad CRISPR-Cas9 patent (EP Patent No. 3 401 400)
U.S. patent office issued third CRISPR patent to CVC; indicates it will issue a fourth
Read moreArrow-down