EPO Board of Appeal finds Broad Institute’s CRISPR patent to lack valid priority claim and upholds revocation of patent (T 0844/18)

EPO Board of Appeal finds Broad Institute’s CRISPR patent to lack valid priority claim and upholds revocation of patent (T 0844/18)

This week’s hearing at the EPO concerning Broad Institute’s CRISPR/Cas9 patent was arguably one of the most high-profile appeals recently.

Despite the Board of Appeal  initially indicating that it was considering referring questions relating to the issue of priority to the Enlarged Board of Appeal, the Board ultimately took the view on the fourth day of the hearing that this was not necessary, apparently convinced by the opponents’ arguments and significant case law, and upheld the decision to revoke the patent.

Background:

  • The patent, EP2771468, owned by the Broad Institute, MIT and Harvard College, was one of the earliest patents granted in Europe in the CRISPR technology landscape.
  • It was revoked in 2018 by the Opposition Division for lack of novelty, after multiple oppositions contesting the patent’s priority claim from an earlier US provisional patent application.
  • The earlier US provisional patent application was filed in the names of multiple inventors, one of whom was not named as an applicant in the later European patent application and had not assigned their rights to the named applicant – this is not in line with the EPO’s formal requirements for validly claiming priority.
  • The Broad Institute argued for its entitlement to priority using Article 87(1) of the EPC which states that “any person” who has filed a patent filing can claim priority and claimed this includes any one of multiple applicants on the same filing.
  • The Broad Institute appealed the Opposition Division’s decision, leading to this week’s hearing.

Key Issues:

  1. Whether the EPO has the jurisdiction to decide questions of entitlement to priority;
  2. What the meaning of the phrase “any person” is in European patent law; and
  3. Whether the EPO should use the national law of the country in which the priority application was filed i.e. whether US law should be applied in this case.

 

Decision:

The Board of Appeal found the patent does not validly claim priority to the US provisional patent application and dismissed the appeal on the basis that:

  1. The EPO does have the jurisdiction to decide on questions of entitlement to priority;
  2. When there is more than one priority applicant, “any person” means all of the applicants of the priority application and thus the right to priority is a joint single right between them; and
  3. National law in which the priority application was filed should not be applied whereas the Paris Convention, the EPC and EPO case law should be relied upon.

Significance:

  • Legal clarity has been provided and previous EPO case law maintained – if the Board had otherwise decided the patent did have a valid priority claim, assessing valid priority claims for any patent/application would have become highly difficult as would determining prior art for each case.
  • Applicants should take care when filing applications claiming priority, as there are fundamental differences in the requirements of different countries for a valid priority claim (notably in US and Europe). If you have any questions in relation to this, please do not hesitate to get into contact with one of our experts at Wynne-Jones IP as we would be happy to advise you.
  • Despite the dismissal of this appeal, there is more to follow - many other related patents and applications owned by the Broad Institute are currently in dispute, but it is likely that with similar issues at stake, such cases will follow suit.
  • As more and more patents related to CRISPR technology are being filed in Europe and with the EPO granting broad overlapping patents in the early CRISPR landscape, it is expected that this field will remain particularly contentious and uncertain.

Agnes Jung, Trainee Patent Attorney 

Related News

news

Coronavirus - UK IPO, EPO and EU IPO extensions and support

A simple overview of the current status from IPOs. Last updated 31st March 2020. 

UPDATE - UK IPO support for those affected by Coronavirus
news

UPDATE - UK IPO support for those affected by Coronavirus

The UKIPO has now certified that a ‘period of interruption’ began on Tuesday 24 March 2020.

BREAKING NEWS - German Federal Constitutional Court decides on UPC complaint
news

BREAKING NEWS - German Federal Constitutional Court decides on UPC complaint

The German Federal Constitutional Court has now issued its long-awaited decision (source) in case  2 BvR 739/17 which was a complaint against the German Ratification Law under which Germany was to ratify the UPC.

EPO announces extensions to deadlines due to COVID-19
news

EPO announces extensions to deadlines due to COVID-19

On Sunday 15 March 2020 the EPO published a notice advising it is invoking the provisions of Rule 134(2) EPC, and has extended all periods expiring on or after publication of the notice to 17 April 2020. This may be extended by the EPO upon publication of a further notice.

EUIPO extends all deadlines for Community Design and European Union Trade Marks
news

EUIPO extends all deadlines for Community Design and European Union Trade Marks

The Executive Director of the EUIPO has today (16 March 2020) issued a decision regarding extensions for all time limits on trade mark and design matters at the EUIPO. In accordance with the decision, all time limits expiring between 9 March 2020 and 30 April 2020 inclusive are extended until 1 May 2020.

news

UK IPO announces support for those affected by coronavirus

In brief, the UK IPO has indicated that it will use its discretionary powers (on a case-by-case basis) to extend time limits where possible under national and international law.

*Update* “EPO Board of Appeal finds Broad Institute’s CRISPR patent to lack valid priority claim and upholds revocation of patent (T 0844/18)”
news

*Update* “EPO Board of Appeal finds Broad Institute’s CRISPR patent to lack valid priority claim and upholds revocation of patent (T 0844/18)”

Earlier this year, we reported on the EPO Board of Appeal’s decision to uphold the revocation of the Broad Institute’s CRISPR patent (here). Now it appears that the Broad Institute is gearing up to put forward a petition for review by the Enlarged Board of Appeal as a last resort to save their patent.

news

The UPC is dead, long live the UPC!

European patent attorneys have been getting excited about the Unitary Patent (UP) and Unified Patent Court (UPC) for years, writing articles, and giving talks and presentations about the ins-and-outs and twists-and-turns of the whole thing. So what is the current situation? What has happened now?

aipex logo aipex logo aipex logo