Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

On May 12, 2025, the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit issued its second decision in the long-running CRISPR patent dispute between the Regents of the University of California and related institutions (CVC) and the Broad Institute. This Perspective recounts the principal dispute to date, reviews the Federal Circuit’s recent opinion, and provides a critique of its analysis. In particular, this Perspective highlights how the decision is self-contradictory and in tension with patent law’s conception doctrine—when an inventor has formed a “definite and permanent” idea of an invention in the mind or whether the invention was little more than a “bare hope” of a result. This Perspective briefly concludes with the implications of this recent decision and where the underlying dispute is likely headed.

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Regents of the Univ. of Cal. v. Broad Institute, Inc., No. 2022-1594. Fed. Cir, 2025.

Regents of the Univ. of Cal. v. Broad Institute, Inc., Patent Interference No. 106,115, Decision on Priority (P.T.A.B. Feb. 29, 2022).

U.S. Patent No. 10,266,850.

Sherkow

. Immaculate conception? Priority and invention in the CRISPR patent dispute. CRISPR J., 2022; 5(2):174–180; doi: 10.1089/crispr.2022.0033

Sherkow

. The CRISPR-Cas9 patent appeal: Where do we go from here? CRISPR J., 2018; 1:309–311; doi: 10.1089/crispr.2018.0044

Sherkow

. The CRISPR patent landscape: Past, present, and future. CRISPR J., 2018; 1:5–9; doi: 10.1089/crispr.2017.0013

Broad Institute, Inc. v. Regents of the Univ. of Cal., Patent Interference No. 106,048, Declaration (P.T.A.B. Jan. 11, 2016).

Broad Institute, Inc. v. Regents of the Univ. of Cal., Patent Interference No. 106,048, Decision on Motions (P.T.A.B. Feb. 15, 2017).

Regents of the Univ. of Cal. v. Broad Institute, Inc., 903 F.3d 1286. Fed. Cir, 2018.

10.

BJ Services Co. v. Halliburton Energy Services, 338 F.3d 1368. Fed. Cir, 2003.

11.

Heard v. Burton, 333 F.2d 239 (C.C.P.A. 1964).

12.

Hitzeman

. Rutter, 243 F. 3d 1345. Fed. Cir, 2001.

13.

US Patent & Trademark Office, Inventorship Guidance for AI-Assisted Inventions, 89 Fed. Reg. 10043 (Feb. 13, 2024).

14.

Boehm

, Flatt

, Palazzoli

. CRISPR technology: Patent & license landscapes. Swiss Center for Business and Technology Intelligence. 2024. Available from: https://www.ige.ch/fileadmin/user_upload/recht/national/e/20231388_IPI_CRISPR_Patent_License_Landscape_revised_Final_16_02_24.pdf

15.

Mast

. After decade-long dispute over CRISPR-Cas9, Editas strikes deal with Vertex to cash in. STAT. 2023. Available from: https://www.statnews.com/2023/12/13/editas-vertex-agreement-crispr-cas9/

A “Bare Hope of A Result”: The Second CRISPR Patent Appeal

Abstract

Get full access to this article

References