Share on LinkedInShare on LinkedIn

ARTICLE · 01 MAY 2018

Spotlight On Upcoming Oral Arguments – May 2018

Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner LLP
Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner LLP
Contributor
Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner LLP

Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner LLP

Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner LLP is one of the world’s largest firms focusing on...

View firm profile
Explore more from Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner LLP

In May 2012, UC filed a provisional patent application claiming the use of the CRISPR-Cas9 system in any environment, including eukaryotic cells.

United StatesIntellectual Property

University of California v. Broad Institute Inc., No. 17-1907, Courtroom 201

In May 2012, UC filed a provisional patent application claiming the use of the CRISPR-Cas9 system in any environment, including eukaryotic cells.  In December 2012, Broad filed a provisional patent application claiming the use of CRISPR-Cas9 in eukaryotic cells.  UC sought an interference, arguing that there was no patentable distinction between Broad's eukaryotic-specific claims and UC's broader claims.  The PTAB terminated the interference concluding that there was no interference-in-fact between UC and Broad.  Specifically, the PTAB held that Broad's claims would not have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art.  

We operate a free-to-view policy, asking only that you register in order to read all of our content. Please login or register to view the rest of this article.

See more popular content from