CRISPR-Cas9: Inventors clash


With UC Berkeley appealing against the US PTAB’s decision in the CRISPR-Cas9 case, what’s next for the groundbreaking gene-editing technology? Kevin O’Connor, partner at Neal Gerber Eisenberg, explains

Is the CRISPR-Cas9 technology proving to be particularly difficult to patent, or is its potential putting a lot of focus on these patent battles?

CRISPR-Cas9 technology is not necessarily difficult to patent. In fact, the US Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) has already issued dozens of patents relating to CRISPR-Cas9 technology.

Like other nascent technologies, there is a potential for securing claims having greater breadth than more well-developed technologies where a great deal of prior art may be available.

The potential applications of the technology coupled with this potential for securing broad claims—particularly for the early entrants to the field—have increased the focus on these patent battles. Patent battles over platform technology are common in biotechnology—areas such as antibody humanisation and DNA sequencing technology have given rise to similar hotly contested proceedings before the patent office.

In the US, were these patents filed pre-America Invents Act and so subject to the first-to-invent paradigm? Could this have been hashed out more quickly and efficiently under first-to-file?

These patents and applications were subject to examination under pre-America Invents Act (AIA) provisions. In particular, UC Berkeley’s patent application was filed on 15 March 2013 and was subject to examination under pre-AIA provisions.

All of the Broad Institute’s involved patents issued from what is known as a transition application: an application with a filing date on or after 16 March 2013, but which claims priority to an application filed before that date.

Interference proceedings are undoubtedly lengthy, complex, and costly. The AIA replaced interference proceedings with derivation proceedings. Derivation proceedings were intended to more efficiently resolve disputes between two patent applicants claiming the same or substantially the same subject matter. However, very few petitions to institute a derivation proceeding have been filed with the USPTO and even fewer have been actually instituted.

Also, germane to your question, UC Berkeley sought authorisation to file its proposed Motion 1, which would have alleged that examination of the Broad Institute’s patents was erroneously conducted under pre-AIA provisions because the patents contain and/or contained at some time one or more claims that are not supported by the Broad Institute application filed prior to 16 March 2013.

The Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) did not authorise UC Berkeley to file its proposed Motion 1, so that underlying issue was not decided by the PTAB. UC Berkeley appealed against the PTAB’s refusal to authorise its proposed Motion 1.

One effect of a court or the PTAB determining that the Broad Institute’s patents should have been examined under the AIA provisions is that the Broad Institute could not antedate UC Berkeley’s earlier filing with testimony, a tactic that the Broad Institute employed during examination of its patents under the pre-AIA provisions.

What will be the crux of UC Berkeley’s federal circuit appeal? What do they hope to achieve?

The PTAB’s determination of no interference in fact deprives UC Berkeley of standing in the interference. Thus, the PTAB was not required to decide any of the other issues raised by the parties. The crux of UC Berkeley’s appeal then is to (re)gain standing.

One issue that it will likely ask the Court of Appeals of the Federal Circuit to address is whether substantial evidence supports the PTAB’s determination that one of ordinary skill in the art would not have reasonably expected a CRISPR-Cas9 system to be successful in a eukaryotic environment.

The technology is also being patented in Europe, which is obviously the next biggest market after the US. Is this a common patent strategy? Secure protection in the biggest markets first, and worry about laying claim to the technology elsewhere later?

Companies often file patent applications around the world, particularly on key aspects of technology. Often the European Patent Office and the USPTO are the first offices to initiate substantive prosecution, usually between 12 and 18 months after the application is filed (at least for biotechnology-related applications).

Typically, this occurs because these patent offices are better staffed than others around the world and not through any effort by the applicant. However, in this instance, the Broad Institute was able to take advantage of a special accelerated examination process in the US.

For a fee, the USPTO’s Track One prioritised examination provides an applicant with a final disposition within about 12 months. The USPTO receives over 600 Track One applications every month, so it is a fairly commonly used option to move examination along even more quickly in the US.

Features
The latest features from IPPro Patents
Former Intellectual Ventures executive Roy Maharaj, now vice president of global patent licensing at Ericsson, tells Barney Dixon why negotiating in good faith is the way forward for patent owners eager to earn royalties
While uncertainty persists, plant breeders may need to double down to secure their rights, says Penny Maplestone of the British Society of Plant Breeders
Join Our Newsletter

Sign up today and never
miss the latest news or an issue again

Subscribe now
Least developed countries can now more easily obtain compulsory licences during public health emergencies, but some have been slow to take advantage. Vítor Palmela Fidalgo of Inventa International explains why
Diana Portna of D&L IP Group explains how Ukraine’s compulsory licensing laws could be opened up for the public interest, and how rights owners could react
Facing unacceptable pendencies in 2003, the Canadian Intellectual Property Office dug deep to make the patent prosecution service more efficient
TC Heartland’s Supreme Court question may see patent owners going cold on the Eastern District of Texas
It is incumbent on practitioners and applicants to take care in drafting and prosecuting applications, says Bea Koempel-Thomas of Lee & Hayes
Is American chipmaker Qualcomm in trouble? Joachim Frommhold of Weinmann Zimmerli examines the facts
Country profiles
The latest country profiles from IPPro Patents
Bruno Nunes of BN IP explains how patent prosecution and licensing works in Macau, a market dominated by gaming and pharma
Tran Viet Phuong of Duong Tran offers a handy guide to patent prosecution
IPPro Connects

Visit our sister site
the worlds biggest and best IP directory

ipproconnects.com
The Andean Community has stood firm in the defence of its owns interests, says Jesús Cuba and Kelly Sánchez of OMC Abogados & Consultores
The first preliminary injunction granted by a China IP court was awarded to Christian Louboutin. Dr Weili Ma of Chofn Intellectual Property explains
Patent prosecution in South Africa rarely favours the inventor, but recent reforms are aiming to change that, one little bit at a time
The Tanzania Patent Office is a useful partner in the prosecution process, says Sunday Godfrey Ndamugoba of ABC Attorneys
Dominic Ogega Mwale, managing partner at Mwale & Company, explains how to patent in Kenya
Patent owners looking for an attractive place to seek protection in Asia need look no further than Singapore, says Max Ng and Gerald Mursjid of Gateway Law Corporation
Interviews
The latest interviews from IPPro Patents