October 4, 2018
Authored and Edited by Matthew J. Luneack; Kara Specht; Elizabeth D. Ferrill
In University of California v. Broad Institute, Inc., the Federal Circuit affirmed the Board’s determination that there was no interference-in-fact between Univ. of Cal.’s (“UC”) pending patent application and several patents and applications owned by Broad. Broad’s claims were directed to the use of a CRISPR-Cas9 system in eukaryotic cells, while UC’s claims did not refer to a particular cell type or environment. The Board found no reasonable expectation of success in applying the CRISPR-Cas9 system in eukaryotic cells and therefore UC’s claims would not have rendered Broad’s claims obvious. Because it found that Broad’s claims were separately patentable over UC’s claims it terminated the interference.
On appeal, UC argued that the Board adopted too “rigid” a test for obviousness, requiring that the prior art contain specific instructions. The Court found that the Board had not required specific instructions in the prior art describing how to apply CRISPR-Cas9 in eukaryotic cells to support a reasonable expectation of success. Rather, the Court found that the Board properly considered the lack of specific instructions in conjunction with additional evidence supporting the Board’s conclusion.
Copyright © 2018 Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP.
DISCLAIMER: Although we wish to hear from you, information exchanged in this blog cannot and does not create an attorney-client relationship. Please do not post any information that you consider to be personal or confidential. If you wish for Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP to consider representing you, in order to establish an attorney-client relationship you must first enter a written representation agreement with Finnegan. Contact us for additional information. One of our lawyers will be happy to discuss the possibility of representation with you. Additional disclaimer information.
Webinar
November 7, 2023
Webinar
At the PTAB Blog
Claim Construction Leads to Unpatentability for Lack of Written Description Support
September 20, 2023
Federal Circuit IP Blog
August 4, 2023
At the PTAB Blog
Claims Invalidated Due to Lack of Sufficient Written Description and Strict Reading of Specification
July 3, 2023
At the PTAB Blog
June 26, 2023
Federal Circuit IP Blog
June 9, 2023
Due to international data regulations, we’ve updated our privacy policy. Click here to read our privacy policy in full.
We use cookies on this website to provide you with the best user experience. By accepting cookies, you agree to our use of cookies. Please note that if you opt not to accept or if you disable cookies, the “Your Finnegan” feature on this website will be disabled as well. For more information on how we use cookies, please see our Privacy Policy.
Finnegan is thrilled to announce the launch of our new blog, Ad Law Buzz, devoted solely to breaking news, developments, trends, and analysis in advertising law.