The CRISP-Cas9 saga has effectively come to an end. For now. On September 10, the Federal Circuit affirmed the decision of the PTAB dismissing the interference between UC and Broad. What are the implications for UC’s patents? What are the chances UC can successfully appeal to the Supreme Court?
Read MoreUC was recently awarded two patents on CRISPR technology. UC is currently embroiled in a highly-watched dispute with the Broad Institute over who owns the heralded first patents covering CRISPR-Cas9 in plant and animal cells. (We previously blogged about the dispute here and here.) While that dispute remains pending, the question remains how important UC’s two new CRISP patents are? How much will they impact the overall intellectual-property being claimed over the burgeoning CRISPR-Cas9 technology?
Read MoreOn April 30, the Federal Circuit convened oral argument in the highly-watched patent case between UC and Broad over the interference proceeding covering patents for CRISPR-Cas9. (An overview of the case and the respective arguments were published in an earlier post.) The hotly-contested argument suggests the Court is leaning towards Broad, but raises deeper questions about whether this is a success or failure for the patent system.
Read MoreThe epic CRISPR-Cas9 patent dispute has reached the Federal Circuit. UC previously lost its bid to the Patent Office to eviscerate Broad’s patents through an interference proceeding. That decision is now on appeal. The briefing at the Federal Circuit is complete, and oral argument is scheduled for April 30, 2018. Who will win at the Federal Circuit—UC or Broad?
Read More