It’s baaaaack, that reputation-shredding, stock-moving fight to the death over key CRISPR patents. On [April 30] in Washington, D.C., the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit [heard] oral arguments in University of California v. Broad Institute. Questions?
How did we get here? The patent office ruled in February 2017 that the Broad’s 2014 CRISPR patent on using CRISPR-Cas9 to edit genomes, based on discoveries by Feng Zhang, did not “interfere” with a patent application by UC based on the work of UC Berkeley’s Jennifer Doudna.
What’s the morning line? UC has its back to the wall. As in an appeal of a criminal case, this appeal is all about the law and whether the patent office interpreted and applied it correctly; there won’t be any dramatic new evidence.
Does UC have a shot? Not much of one, said the experts consulted by STAT.
When will we have a decision? In as little as a week if the judges regard the case as meh, with no need to establish precedent and therefore write a long, complicated opinion. But that seems very unlikely…That probably means in 60 to 90 days.
And then it’s over, right? The losing side will have at least 60 days to appeal to the Supreme Court, which would decide sometime after October whether or not to take the case.
Read the full, original post: All you need to know for round 2 of the CRISPR patent fight