CRISPR Case

Regents of the University of California, University of Vienna, Emmanuelle Charpentier, (Appellants) (UC) v. Broad Institute, Inc., Massachusetts Institute of Technology, President and Fellows of Harvard College, (Respondents) (Broad)

This case was decided on 10th September 2018 in the United States Court of Appeal for the Federal Circuit (“FC”). It is an Appeal from the United States Patent and Trademark Office, Patent Trial and Appeal Board.

Facts: CRISPR is an acronym for “Clustered Regularly Interspaced Short Palindromic Repeats.” CRISPR is a family of DNA sequences that are used in genetic engineering to edit or alter gene functions of prokaryotes and eukaryotes. There are three components to a CRISPR-Cas9 system. 1. crRNA, 2. tracrRNA and 3. Cas9 protein.

In August 2012, an article (“Jinek 2012”) was published by UC researchers which demonstrated the use of isolated elements of the CRISPR-Cas9 system in vitro non-cellular experimental environment. Within a year in February 2013, Broad researchers published an article describing the use of CRISPR-Cas9 in a human cell line. Both parties sought patent protection for their work. Jinek 2012 article did not report the results of experiments using CRISPR-Cas9 in a eukaryotic cell nor did theyrefer to a particular cell type or environment. They used naked nuclear material and Cas9 protein for their experiment. The Broad article on the other hand specifically mentiond the use of eukaryotic cell in their claims.

The UC instituted a suit against Broad for obviousness, and Broad moved to terminate the suit, arguing its claims are patentably distinct from UC’s claims.There is no reasonable expectation that the CRISPR-Cas9 system would work successfully in a eukaryotic cell by a person of ordinary skill in the art. The Board (PTAB) determined there was no interference-in-fact because, given the differences between eukaryotic and prokaryotic systems, a person of ordinary skill in the art would not have had a reasonable expectation of success in applying the CRISPR-Cas9 system in eukaryotes. PTAB determined, therefore, that UC’s claims to the use of CRISPR-Cas9 did not render obvious Broad’s claims to its use in eukaryotes. UC appeals.

Issue: Whether there was interference-in-fact (obviousness) between UC’s patent, and the claims of patent owned by the Broad.

Held: There is no interference-in-fact.

Explanation: US follows the first to invent system if there arises a dispute between two patents having similar subject matter. To determine obviousness, the Supreme Court has laid own four tests in the case ofGraham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 17–18 (1966)(1) the scope and content of the prior art; (2) the differences between the claims and the prior art;(3) the level of ordinary skill in the art; and(4) objective considerations of non-obviousness—are questions of fact to be reviewed for substantial evidence.To determine obviousness, it is required that a person of ordinary skill in the art would been couraged to combine or modify the instructions in the prior art and would have had a reasonable expectation of success in doing so. This case had to be decided on substantial evidence standard.

  1. Reasonable Expectation of Success: For obviousness,a rigid test was adopted by the Board that looked for specific instructions in the prior art while ignoring that a person of ordinary skill in the art would use his creativity and inferences to come to a conclusion.
    Response by FC: Only specific instructions in the art would have given one of ordinary skill in the art a reasonable expectation of success.There were failures demonstrated in using Cas9 which indicated the lack of a reasonable expectation of success.
  2. Simultaneous invention: It can be compelling and strong objective of evidence for obviousness because CRISPR-Cas9 was applied within months of UC’s publication.
    Response by FC: Evidence of simultaneous invention cannot alone show obviousness, otherwise any claims involved in a conflict would be unpatentable for obviousness.

In addition to this there was also a testimony given by UC’s expert Dr Dana Carroll recognizing issues that could arise in attempting to apply the CRISPR-Cas9 system in eukaryotic cells. That CRISPR-Cas9 might be degraded by nucleases in eukaryotic cells. The DNA of eukaryotes is in the form of chromatin coiled around proteins called histones. Targeting the site becomes difficult and even after it does recognise, DNA-RNA hybrid stability is seen as foreign in a normal cell.The efficacy of gene editing through base pairing remains unpromisingly low. Only attempts to apply the system in eukaryotes by conducting experiments will address these concerns.

FC thus decided that, PTAB had performed a thorough analysis of the factual evidence,considered statements by experts for both parties, past failures and successes of using CRISPR-Cas9 in the field, evidence of simultaneous invention, and the extent to which the claims provided specific instructions for applying the CRISPR-Cas9 technology in a new environment. It was concluded that there was no reasonable expectation of success and substantial evidence supports the Board’s finding. The Board made no default in its determination that there is no interference-in-fact. The decision of the Board was affirmed by FC.

Author: Dias Michelle Jerry, LLB student from, Rajiv Gandhi School of Intellectual Property Law, Intern at Khurana and Khurana Advocates and IP Attorneys and can be reached at swapnils@khuranaandkhurana.com

Leave a Reply

Archives

  • October 2021
  • September 2021
  • August 2021
  • July 2021
  • June 2021
  • May 2021
  • April 2021
  • March 2021
  • February 2021
  • January 2021
  • December 2020
  • November 2020
  • October 2020
  • September 2020
  • August 2020
  • July 2020
  • June 2020
  • May 2020
  • April 2020
  • March 2020
  • February 2020
  • January 2020
  • December 2019
  • November 2019
  • October 2019
  • September 2019
  • August 2019
  • July 2019
  • June 2019
  • May 2019
  • April 2019
  • March 2019
  • February 2019
  • January 2019
  • December 2018
  • November 2018
  • October 2018
  • September 2018
  • August 2018
  • July 2018
  • June 2018
  • May 2018
  • April 2018
  • March 2018
  • February 2018
  • January 2018
  • December 2017
  • November 2017
  • September 2017
  • August 2017
  • July 2017
  • June 2017
  • May 2017
  • April 2017
  • March 2017
  • February 2017
  • January 2017
  • December 2016
  • November 2016
  • October 2016
  • September 2016
  • August 2016
  • July 2016
  • June 2016
  • May 2016
  • April 2016
  • March 2016
  • February 2016
  • January 2016
  • December 2015
  • November 2015
  • October 2015
  • September 2015
  • August 2015
  • July 2015
  • June 2015
  • May 2015
  • April 2015
  • March 2015
  • February 2015
  • January 2015
  • December 2014
  • November 2014
  • October 2014
  • September 2014
  • August 2014
  • July 2014
  • June 2014
  • May 2014
  • April 2014
  • March 2014
  • February 2014
  • January 2014
  • December 2013
  • November 2013
  • October 2013
  • September 2013
  • August 2013
  • July 2013
  • June 2013
  • May 2013
  • April 2013
  • March 2013
  • February 2013
  • January 2013
  • December 2012
  • November 2012
  • September 2012
  • August 2012
  • July 2012
  • June 2012
  • May 2012
  • April 2012
  • March 2012
  • February 2012
  • January 2012
  • December 2011
  • November 2011
  • October 2011
  • September 2011
  • August 2011
  • July 2011
  • June 2011
  • May 2011
  • April 2011
  • March 2011
  • February 2011
  • January 2011
  • December 2010
  • September 2010
  • July 2010
  • June 2010
  • May 2010
  • April 2010