Key Takeaways: Interference proceedings, though increasingly rare, are heavily evidence-based and determine which party is the first inventor when two or more applicants claim the same patentable invention. Sometimes, an inventor’s own documents can be damaging to a claim of prior invention.
On March 26, 2026, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) again ruled against the University of California, the University of Vienna, and Emmanuelle Charpentier (“CVC”) in an interference proceeding.[1] This is the latest chapter in the ongoing CRISPR patent disputes between CVC and the Broad Institute.[2] The PTAB found that the Broad Institute was first to invent a CRISPR-Cas9 system capable of cleaving or editing DNA in eukaryotic cells.
The Federal Circuit remanded the case to the PTAB after finding the PTAB had conflated the standards for conception and reduction to practice in its previous decision.[3] Because CVC filed after the Broad Institute, CVC had to show it conceived the invention first.[4]
Under the first-to-invent framework, an inventor must (a) reduce the invention to practice first, or (b) conceive the invention first and demonstrate reasonable diligence in reducing it to practice afterward. Conception requires a definite and permanent idea of the complete and operative invention, so that only ordinary skill is needed to reduce it to practice without extensive research or experimentation.
The PTAB ruled that CVC did not establish conception at the asserted date. The PTAB determined CVC’s laboratory notebook entries, publications, and testimony did not demonstrate a definite and permanent idea of a complete and operative eukaryotic CRISPR-Cas9 system at the asserted dates.[5] Instead, the PTAB determined that the invention was highly unpredictable and complex, and that CVC failed to show that a person of ordinary skill could achieve success in eukaryotic cells without extensive further research.[6]
The PTAB also noted mixed results after CVC’s publication: some labs succeeded quickly, but others (including CVC collaborators) failed.[7] The PTAB found that the successful labs had particular expertise and capabilities beyond those of an ordinarily skilled artisan, and their success did not demonstrate that only routine methods were required. [8]
The PTAB therefore concluded that the CVC inventors did not have a definite and permanent idea of a complete and operative eukaryotic CRISPR-Cas9 system at the asserted conception dates, as they continued to make substantive modifications to their system. [9]
Interference proceedings are not available for applications filed under the current America Invents Act (AIA) first-to-file framework, implemented in 2013. Under the AIA, priority is determined based on the filing date of the patent application, rather than the date of invention, eliminating the need for interference proceedings. Accordingly, interference proceedings are becoming increasingly rare.
Editor: Brenden S. Gingrich, Ph.D.
[1] Regents of the University of California v. Broad Institute, Inc., Interference No. 106,115, Paper 2915 (PTAB March 26, 2026).
(available at https://patentdocs.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/03/judgment-37-c.f.r.-c2a7-41.127a.pdf).
[2] See also CRISPR Dispute Heats Up with Recent Federal Court Decision, UC v. Broad Institute: No Interference-In-Fact in CRISPR Genome Editing Applications, PTAB Terminates Interference Proceeding Between University of California and Broad Institute Regarding CRISPR Gene Editing Claims.
[3] University of California v. Broad Institute, at 4.
[4] Id. at 50.
[5] See, e.g., id. at 18.
[6] See, e.g., id. at 18, 44.
[7] See id. at 19.
[8] See id. at 29.
[9] See, e.g., id. at 43.
Subscribe for News and Updates
