In a recent legal update, the Broad Institute, jointly with Harvard University and MIT, (referred to as “Broad”) handed in their reply brief relating to the cross-appeal of Interference No. 106,115. This marks another chapter in the ongoing legal framework surrounding CRISPR-mediated gene editing patent rights, with Broad contesting a decision from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s (PTAB) against Junior Party the University of California/Berkeley, the University of Vienna, and Emmanuelle Charpentier (collectively, “CVC”).
As chronicled by JD Supra, the argument of the Broad focuses on how they believe the PTAB made an error in dismissing two Preliminary Motions linked to this interference. The reply brief has been presented as a response to the PTAB’s unfavorable decision on priority against CVC.
The legal discord between Broad and CVC has been protracted and intricate, concerning one of the most potent tools in the modern bioengineering toolbox: CRISPR-mediated gene editing. The underlying strife takes root in the question of who was the first to successfully use this technology in eukaryotic cells, hence raising issues of patent primacy.
The particular Preliminary Motions by Broad dismissed by the PTAB have not been laid bare in the public domain. Thus, speculating on the contents of these could risk straying into the realm of conjecture. This present development, however, further underscores the high-stakes nature of this genetic editing technology and the vigorous legal combat that ensues between major academic institutions over the patent rights.
The interference procedure was initiated by CVC’s challenge of Broad’s previously granted patents, a development which underscores the highly contentious climate of patent rights and technological advancement. With such a significant spectrum of commercial implications on the line, including potential applications in gene therapy and disease modifying treatments, it is clear this is unlikely to be the final word on the matter.
The continuation of this feud, with its associated legal machinations, will doubtless require astute attention from legal professionals working in the fields of intellectual property and biotechnology.