Morgan Stanley $EDIT $CRSP $NTLA Unequivocal Patent Win
Time to move investor debate to proof-of-concept #CRISPR

PTAB declared no interference-in-fact for Editas licensed
CRISPR patents, ending the interference and cementing Editas'
IP position in eukaryotic cells. While scenarios remain where
other parties can collect some foundational CRISPR IP, Editas
has derisked concerns around its freedom to operate.


The USPTO issued final judgment in favor of the Broad Institute/Editas in the
interference proceedings between the Broad Institute and the University of
California. The Broad Institute holds the patents surrounding the use of CRISPR
in mammalian cells which the University of California was attempting to
challenge. The University of California claimed that the Broad Institute patents
were an obvious extension their work in prokaryotic cells. A three judge panel
issued a judgment that this was not the case and that they "enter judgment of no
interference-infact." The full text of the decision on the motions can be found
here.


Decision is a significant derisking event for Editas; appeal is possible, but
unlikely to overturn ruling: Given the potential of CRISPR technology we believe
it is likely that the University of California will appeal the decision. We have
previously written about the IPR and appeal process here. The standards for
appeal are stricter than in the original proceeding which makes interference cases
hard to win on appeal. According to USPTO statistics from November 2016 (here)
only ~30% of cases brought to appeals between 2014 and 2016 have the
judgment reversed.


Move in EDIT makes sense; Time to move investor debate to proof-of-concept:
While there is likely to be more noise related to IP, we believe today's news
should remove IP as a central investor debate for EDIT. Next-up is filing of the
IND for CEP290 and potential proof-of-concept in human in 2018.

Reply · Report Post