The CAFC vacated a PTAB decision favoring the Broad Institute in the CRISPR-Cas9 patent dispute, emphasizing that the proper standard for conception does not require certainty of success. The PTAB mistakenly equated conception with the reduction to practice, concluding the Regents had not conceived their invention based on their uncertainty about the CRISPR-Cas9 system's function in eukaryotic cells. The CAFC reiterated that inventors only need a definite and permanent idea of their invention, allowing for practical implementation by someone skilled in the area without extensive experimentation.
The CAFC clarified that the proper standard asks 'whether the inventors had a definite and permanent idea of the operative inventions' such that a person of ordinary skill could reduce it to practice without extensive experimentation.
The CAFC reaffirmed that conception doesn't require certainty of success and remanded for reevaluation under the correct framework.
The Federal Circuit faulted the PTAB for conflating conception with reduction to practice.
Knowledge of success isn't required for conception, emphasizing the need for definitive ideas to enable practical application.
Collection
[
|
...
]