CRISPR opposition hearing kicks off at EPO
Today could play a pivotal role in the CRISPR patent landscape in Europe.
The European Patent Office’s (EPO) Opposition Division has begun its oral hearing into the eligibility of one of ten European patents covering CRISPR/Cas9 technology that has been issued to the Broad Institute of MIT and Harvard.
In April last year, the EPO issued a preliminary and non-binding opinion which found that European patent 2,771,468 was invalid.
The opposition proceedings will last four days, ending on Friday, January 19.
The ruling will also apply to seven of Broad’s nine other opposed patents. These patents have been put on hold in light of the hearing.
Third parties have nine months to oppose a patent after it has been granted under EPO rules.
According to Catherine Coombes, patent director at HGF in the UK, a key theme in the oppositions is whether the formal requirement for priority has been met.
A patent applicant or its successor can enjoy a right of priority to an earlier application, with the later application being able to claim the earlier date.
She explained that, in Europe, case law has indicated that where a later patent application is not filed by the same applicant, a transfer of priority must have occurred before the filing date of the later application.
According to Coombes, in the ‘468 opposition, neither the inventor (Luciano Marraffini) nor his institution (Rockefeller University) were named as joint applicants, despite Marraffini being listed as a joint applicant in the earlier patent application from which priority was claimed.
The EPO’s Opposition Division, in its preliminary opinion, confirmed that neither Marraffini nor Rockefeller University assigned their rights to claim priority and stated that Broad is not entitled to claim the priority dates of December 12, 2012 or January 2, 2013.
Coombes spoke to LSIPR about the proceedings before attending Life Sciences Patent Network Europe on December 6 in London. To read more of her thoughts, click here.
Daniel Lim, a senior associate at Allen & Overy, tweeted: “Unsurprisingly, priority is [the] first topic on the agenda. That decision will shape how the rest of the hearing goes.”
