In University of California v. Broad Institute, Inc., No. 2017-1907 (Fed. Cir. Sept. 10, 2018), the CAFC affirmed the PTAB's holding that there was no interference-in-fact between a pending University of California patent application and the claims of twelve patents and one application owned by Broad. The PTAB had found that Broad's claims directed to the use of a CRISPR-Cas9 system in eukaryotic cells were separately patentable over the University of California's claims that did not refer to a particular cell type or environment. On appeal, the CAFC held the PTAB had properly considered the lack of specific instructions in the prior art describing how to apply CRISPR-Cas9 in eukaryotic cells in conjunction with additional evidence supporting the PTAB's determination. Further discussion of the decision can be found on Finnegan's Federal Circuit IP Blog.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.