• Skip to main content
  • Skip to primary sidebar
  • Skip to footer
+49 (0) 69 / 606 278 – 0
[email protected]
Contact form
Patentanwaltskanzlei

Patentanwaltskanzlei

  • Deutsch

+49 (0) 69 / 606 278 – 0

  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Instagram
  • LinkedIn
  • xing
  • Email
MENUMENU
  • Services
    • Advice On Protective IP Rights
    • Patent Application /TM Registration
    • Enforcement Of IP Rights
    • Defence Against IP Rights Enforcement
    • Costs
  • Company
    • Fields of Law
      • Patent Law
      • Utility Model Law
      • Employees‘ Inventions
      • Trademark Law
      • Design Law
      • Trademark and Product Piracy
      • Expert Opinions
    • Our Law Firm
      • Dr. Tim Meyer-Dulheuer
      • Dr. Klaus Zimmermann
      • Zhichao Ying
      • Walter Benjamin Feldheim
    • Commitment
  • Contact
    • Where To Find Us
    • Write us!
    • Request call back
  • Blog

CRISPR Genetic scissors: “every person” in priority right

16. November 2020

The invention of the CRISPR Gene Scissors was awarded this year’s Nobel Prize; it is considered a groundbreaking therapeutic approach. Not surprisingly, there has been a competition for the priority right of patents for years. Priority right cannot be fragmented, the Board of Appeal decided.

CRISPR Gen-SchereThe granting of patents and intellectual property rights in CRISPR technology has been controversial for years, with two groups of inventors claiming inventor rights. This is because precisely fitting CRISPR genome processing, the “gene scissors”, is considered the key technology in the fight against cancer.

Background: Race to patent CRISPR technology

The granting of the patent on the CRISPR gene scissors was a close race with additional complications due to different patent grants in the EU and US. It is undisputed that the team around inventors Jennifer Doudna and Emmanuelle Charpentier were the first to describe the CRISPR editing process and apply for a U.S. patent in 2012. This year 2020, by the way, they received the Nobel Prize for it – absolutely welldeserved.

A second group of inventors around the renowned Broad Institute of MIT (Masschusetts Institute of Technology) and Harvard University also applied for a U.S. patent on CRISPR in 2013 – for CRISPR applications in “higher” organisms (eukaryotes). Since then, the two inventor groups have been conducting opposition proceedings against the granted patents, both in the US and in the EU.

In Europe, the EU patent (2771468 B1) of the MIT/Harvard team is particularly important; it contains several references also to earlier patent rights. In an important EPO decision in January 2018, the EPO revoked this EU patent and the Board of Appeal confirmed the revocation in January 2020 and rejected the opposition of the MIT/Harvard team (T 844/18).

This leaves open the race for the intellectual property rights to the CRISPR gene scissors and CRISPR technology, which is already considered to be decided. By the way, both inventor groups are working flat out to make the CRISPR gene scissors even more precisely fitting (keywords CasY and CasX of the Doudna group; CRISPR-Cpf1 instead of the Cas9 protein of the MIT group) and to secure their applications by further new patents. In this context, please also read HERE the text section “Open patent portfolio as a way out of the CRISPR permanent conflict”.

Board of Appeal: Right of priority under Article 87(1) EPC

A few days ago now, on 6 November 2020, the Board of Appeal issued a press release explaining the revocation of the CRISPR EU patent of MIT/Harvard (T 844/18).

This is very interesting from a patent law point of view, because in its decision the Board of Appeal interprets the right of priority according to Article 87(1) EPC and in particular the term “any person”.
Is a priority claim valid even without a transfer of the priority right from B to A, if only A is the applicant for the subsequent application, but A and B are applicants for the priority application?

The decisive question is therefore how the term “any person” in Article 87(1) EPC should be understood.

“any person” in the priority right

The position of the Board of Appeal is clear: a valid priority claim requires that all persons listed as applicants for the priority application must also be listed as applicants for the subsequent application. Under Article 87(1) EPC, any person who has duly filed a patent application or his successor in title enjoys a right of priority during a period of twelve months from the filing date of the first application.

In the present case of the CRISPR patent, however, the situation is even more complicated. In the patent application was failed to mention (in both the EU and the US) one co-inventor and the EPO therefore declared the patent invalid. However, the same issue was already being negotiated in the USA in 2017. And there it was decided in favour of the team around MIT/Harvard and confirmed the validity of the patent.

The Board of Appeal therefore also ruled in the question whether national law (in this case U.S. law) regulates the provision “any person” who has “duly filed an application” under Article 87 (1) EPC. This was clearly rejected by the Board.

Article 87(1) EPC gives the EPO both the power and the obligation to examine the validity of a priority claim, the Board of Appeal ruled. Therefore, a priority claim could not be examined in actions before national courts, but only before the EPO. And since Article 87(1) EPC corresponds to Article 4A (the Paris Convention for the Protection of Industrial Property), this provision determines who “any person” is – but not the U.S. interpretation.

The priority right cannot be fragmented, is the short version of the decision, “any person” thus meaning “all applicants”.

Do you also want to protect or defend your invention?

Our attorneys have many years of expertise in patent law as well as in the entire field of intellectual property and are entitled to represent you before any court – in Germany and internationally.
Please contact us if you are interested.


 

Sources:

Press release of Board of Appeal (EPO); T 844/18

Image:

own design of image based on quimono | pixabay.com | CCO License  and AnneliseArt | pixabay.com | CCO License

 

  • share  
  • share 
  • share 
  • share 
  • share 

Category iconPatent Law Tag iconall applicants,  Article 87(1) EPC,  Crispr,  CRISPR Gene scissors,  CRISPR technology,  Doudna / Charpentier,  Doudna and Emmanuelle Charpentier,  gene scissors,  MIT/Harvard,  Nobel Prize,  priority,  Priority right,  T 844/18,  USA

Reader Interactions

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Primary Sidebar

More articles about: Patent Law

All articles

Blog Menu

  • Design Law
  • Healthcare & Lifesciences
  • International Intellectual Property
  • Licenses
  • News from our law firm
  • Overall
  • Patent Law
  • Product- and Trademark piracy
  • Trademark Law

Recent Posts

  • What is the public allowed to know? 3. June 2024
  • BPatG: Patent claim of cancer drug on active substance as salt 7. March 2022
  • Grant for European IP Protection: SME Fund 2022 4. March 2022
  • CODE-X vs. Cody’s: Likelihood of confusion in drinks? 25. February 2022

Fields of Law

  • Patent Law
  • Utility Model Law
  • Employees’ Inventions
  • Trademark Law
  • Design Law
  • Trademark and Product Piracy
  • Expert Opinions
  • Costs

Das könnte Sie auch interessieren:

4. March 2022
Grant for European IP Protection: SME Fund 2022

Grant for European IP Protection: SME Fund 2022

22. February 2022
PAP is in force: UPC possible in 2022

PAP is in force: UPC possible in 2022

8. February 2022
Germany: Value in dispute and costs in proceedings

Germany: Value in dispute and costs in proceedings

3. February 2022
PCT application – does the principle of joint applicants apply?

PCT application – does the principle of joint applicants apply?

1. February 2022
Proof of patent infringement by whistleblower

Proof of patent infringement by whistleblower

19. January 2022
Computer Data identification declared invalid

Computer Data identification declared invalid

Contact us or request a call back

+49 (0) 69 / 606 278 – 0
[email protected]
Request a call back

Footer

Contact

Hanauer Landstrasse 287
D – 60314 Frankfurt am Main
Deutschland
+49 (0) 69 / 606 278 – 0
+49 (0) 69 / 606 278 – 199
[email protected]

Office Hours
Moday – Friday:   08:00-18:00

Fields of Law

  • Patent Law
  • Utility Model Law
  • Employees’ Inventions
  • Trademark Law
  • Design Law
  • Trademark and Product Piracy
  • Expert Opinions
  • Costs

Law Firm

  • Request non-binding call back
  • Company
  • Our Law Firm
  • ISO Certificate
  • Privacy Policy
  • Data handling for clients
  • Imprint

Follow Us

  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • LinkedIn
  • xing
  • Email

Newsletter Signup

Newsletter INT

© Meyer-Dulheuer MD Legal Patentanwälte PartG

Contact Form

 

Give us a call, send us an email or fill out the contact form.

+49 (0) 69 / 606 278 – 0
[email protected]

Rückruf INT

Please note: If we deal specifically with your individual case, this is what is known as an initial consultation. In accordance with Section 34 of the Rechtsanwaltsvergütungsgesetz, this incurs one-off costs of 190 euros plus MwSt. We will be happy to assist you in a personal consultation after our telephone call.

Kontaktformular

 

Rufen Sie uns an, schicken Sie uns eine Mail oder füllen Sie das Kontaktformular aus.

+49 (0) 69 / 606 278 – 0
[email protected]

Rückruf

Um dieses Angebot nutzen zu können, müssen Sie der Speicherung Ihrer personenbezogenen Daten zustimmen. Wir behandeln diese streng vertraulich und verwenden sie nur zur Kontaktaufnahme mit Ihnen. Mehr dazu lesen Sie in unserer Datenschutzerklärung.

Bitte beachten Sie: Wenn wir uns konkret mit Ihrem Einzelfall befassen, ist dies eine sogenannte Erstberatung. Für eine solche entstehen gemäß § 34 Rechtsanwaltsvergütungsgesetz einmalige Kosten in Höhe von 190 Euro plus MwSt. Gerne helfen wir Ihnen im Anschluss an unser Telefonat in einem persönlichen Beratungsgespräch weiter.