"The PTAB was again 'not persuaded that CVC has met its burden as junior party of showing that its inventors conceived of an embodiment of Count 1 before the Broad inventors had reduced the invention to practice.'"
"The CAFC explained that conception doesn't require certainty of success and remanded for reevaluation under the correct framework."
"The court upheld the finding that CVC's 2012 provisional applications lacked adequate written description, stating they did not adequately show possession of an operable CRISPR-Cas9 system."
The PTAB confirmed that Broad Institute and its affiliates were the first inventors of CRISPR-Cas9 gene editing in eukaryotic cells. The CAFC previously vacated the PTAB's decision, stating that the standard applied was incorrect, as it required proof of the invention's success. However, the CAFC upheld the PTAB's finding that CVC's 2012 provisional applications did not provide an adequate written description of an operable CRISPR-Cas9 system, preventing CVC from establishing a constructive reduction to practice.
Read at IPWatchdog.com | Patents & Intellectual Property Law
Unable to calculate read time
Collection
[
|
...
]