Meanwhile, Back at the PTAB with CRISPR – Update

Why It Matters

The outcome will shape ownership of foundational CRISPR patents, influencing licensing terms and R&D investment across the biotech sector.

Key Takeaways

• Federal Circuit vacated Broad's priority award in Interference 106,115.
• PTAB panel replaced with Townsend, Cotta, and Katz judges.
• Briefing schedule: supplements Oct 10, responses Nov 7, replies Dec 5.
• Derivation issue remains central to priority determination.
• Oral hearing date pending, extending uncertainty for CRISPR patents.

Pulse Analysis

The Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) has entered a new phase in the high‑stakes CRISPR interference that pits the Broad Institute against a coalition led by UC Berkeley and Emmanuelle Charpentier. After the Federal Circuit vacated the Board’s original priority award, the PTAB refreshed its panel, installing Judges Townsend, Cotta and Katz. This change not only signals a fresh analytical lens but also underscores the procedural rigor the Board applies when adjudicating complex biotechnology patents, where scientific nuance meets legal precedent.

The Board’s latest order imposes a tight briefing timetable, compelling both parties to sharpen their priority arguments and derivation defenses. By limiting supplemental briefs to 25 pages and replies to 10, the PTAB forces concise, evidence‑driven submissions, while still allowing parties to argue the critical "prior conception and communication" standard. The derivation issue—whether the later filer derived the invention from the earlier party—remains the linchpin, as it can overturn a prior‑art claim and reshape the patent landscape for gene‑editing technologies.

For the broader industry, the pending decision carries significant commercial weight. CRISPR patents underpin a multibillion‑dollar market in therapeutics, agriculture and diagnostics. A ruling favoring either side could recalibrate licensing royalties, affect venture‑capital allocations, and set a precedent for future biotech interferences. Stakeholders are watching the yet‑to‑be‑scheduled oral hearing, aware that any delay prolongs market uncertainty and may prompt interim licensing agreements or strategic settlements.