Posts Tagged: "The Broad Institute"

When it Comes to Eukaryotic Cells, Broad Institute Has Priority to CRISPR Gene Editing Tech, Says PTAB

The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) ruled in an interference proceeding yesterday that The Broad Institute, Inc., Massachusetts Institute of Technology, and President and Fellows of Harvard College (“Broad”) have priority over The Regents of the University of California, University of Vienna, and Emmanuelle Charpentier (“CVC”) with respect to who was first to invent the use of single-guide CRISPR-Cas9 genome engineering technology in eukaryotic cells.

Eileen McDermott

March 1, 2022

The CRISPR Tug of War

The University of California (“UC”) and The Broad Institute, Inc. (“Broad”) are among the leaders in the development of CRISPR technology. Both UC and Broad filed patent applications for claims broadly drawn to CRISPR-Cas9 systems and methods of DNA editing. These parties are currently engaged in litigation over patents concerning the potentially most lucrative application of CRISPR technology – the use of CRISPR-Cas9 in plant and animal (eukaryotic) cells. The outcome of this litigation will affect control of the CRISPR platform and development of the technology.

Ted Mathias & Stacie Ropka, PhD & Rebecca Clegg

August 17, 2018

The Broad Institute files brief with CAFC answering U of California’s appeal in CRISPR-Cas9 patent interference

On Wednesday, October 25th, the Cambridge, MA-based medical research center The Broad Institute filed a brief with the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in response to an appeal filed by the University of California stemming from patent interference proceedings playing out at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB). The Broad Institute’s filing is the latest salvo in a patent battle which has played out between developers of a gene editing technology, which could prove to be very important to the future of fighting disease in humans.

Steve Brachmann

November 5, 2017

CRISPR patent interference ended by USPTO because parties’ claims do not interfere

The PTAB concluded: “Based on our determination that the preponderance of the evidence shows there is no interference-in-fact between the parties’ claims, we need not decide the other pending motions.”… Yesterday the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) of the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) issued a decision in the CRISPR patent interference pending between The Broad Institute, Inc. (the Junior Party; second filer) and The Regents of the University of California (the Senior Party; first filer)… This ruling is a victory for The Broad Institute, who had filed a motion arguing that the interference should never have been declared because there is no intereference-in-fact between the claims being made by the parties.

Gene Quinn

February 16, 2017