LawSnap

Reasons for the PTAB’s Priority Determination in Broad’s Favor (Perhaps)

Published
Source JD Supra open_in_new
Score
7

Why it matters

On March 26, 2026, the U.S. Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) reaffirmed priority of invention to the Broad Institute (with Harvard University and MIT) over the University of California, University of Vienna, and Emmanuelle Charpentier (collectively "CVC") in Interference No. 106,115, concerning a single-guide CRISPR-Cas9 system for eukaryotic gene editing.[1][2][5] PTAB ruled that CVC failed to prove by preponderance of evidence an earlier, complete conception before Broad's actual reduction to practice on October 5, 2012, rejecting CVC's derivation claims as well; this preserves Broad's 13 issued patents and one application over CVC's 14 applications.[1][2][5][7] The decision followed remand without oral hearing or full briefing review.[3]

Key parties include Senior Party Broad Institute, Harvard, and MIT versus Junior Party CVC; central individuals are CVC inventors (e.g., Jennifer Doudna implied via UC Berkeley) and Broad's (e.g., Feng Zhang, Luciano Marraffini referenced in derivation disputes).[1][2][5][7] PTAB (U.S. Patent and Trademark Office agency) adjudicated under pre-AIA first-inventor-to-file rules emphasizing conception, diligence, and reduction to practice.[2][4][5]

The dispute traces to 2012 filings: Broad achieved eukaryotic CRISPR reduction to practice October 5; CVC's earliest supported provisional was December 2012 (No. 61/757,640).[2][5][7] PTAB initially awarded Broad priority (pre-2025), vacated by Federal Circuit in May 2025 (Regents of UC v. Broad Inst.) for conflating conception with reduction standards and ignoring routine skill evidence.[1][2][4][5] Remand prompted PTAB's swift March 2026 reaffirmation, focusing on CVC's incomplete conception amid eukaryotic complexities.[1][3][5]

Newsworthy due to recency (March 26, 2026, just two weeks ago as of April 12), high CRISPR stakes in $multi-billion gene-editing market, and PTAB's resistance to Federal Circuit critique—likely headed for appeal, impacting biotech IP licensing and innovation.[1][2][3][5][8] UC expressed disappointment, blocking CVC applications' allowance.[8]

Sources

[1] https://www.mofo.com/resources/insights/260407-the-ptab-reaffirms-priority-decision-for-crispr-ip
[2] https://www.jdsupra.com/legalnews/ptab-again-awards-priority-of-invention-3752644/
[3] https://www.jdsupra.com/legalnews/reasons-for-the-ptab-s-priority-4054850/
[4] https://haugpartners.com/article/in-crispr-patent-dispute-the-federal-circuit-clarifies-the-conception-and-written-description-standards/
[5] https://ipwatchdog.com/2026/03/27/ptab-upholds-priority-win-for-broad-institute-in-crispr-patent-case/
[6] https://www.uspto.gov/patents/ptab/decisions-and-opinions/precedential
[7] https://www.knobbe.com/blog/one-battle-after-another-broad-institute-wins-at-ptab-in-crispr-dispute/
[8] https://news.berkeley.edu/2026/03/26/ptab-sides-with-broad-institute-over-university-of-california-on-patent-priority-for-use-of-crispr-in-eukaryotic-cells/
[9] https://www.broadinstitute.org/crispr/journalists-statement-and-background-crispr-patent-process
[10] https://patentdocs.org/2026/04/08/ptab-again-awards-priority-of-invention-to-broad-in-interference-no-106115/
mail

Get notified about new Litigator Tracker

Primary sources. No fluff. Straight to your inbox.

Also on LawSnap

Court Rules

Legal Intelligence

Specialized Trackers

Analysis