PTAB Upholds Broad Institute's Priority in CRISPR-Cas9 Patent Dispute with University of California

The U.S. Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) has once again ruled in favor of the Broad Institute, Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), and Harvard University — collectively known as the Broad — regarding the priority of CRISPR-Cas9 gene editing technology applied to eukaryotic cells. This decision, announced on March 26, 2026, reaffirms the PTAB’s original 2022 finding that the Broad was the first to invent the use of CRISPR-Cas9 in eukaryotic cells, which include plant, fungal, and animal cells, as well as human cells.

The CRISPR-Cas9 gene editing technique, a groundbreaking method for DNA manipulation, was originally invented by Jennifer Doudna of the University of California, Berkeley; Emmanuelle Charpentier, formerly of Umeå University in Sweden; and their colleagues, including a Ph.D. student from the University of Vienna, Austria. This group is collectively referred to as CVC (California-Vienna-Charpentier). Doudna and Charpentier’s pioneering work earned them the 2020 Nobel Prize in Chemistry and widespread recognition as the inventors of CRISPR-Cas9 gene editing.

Despite this recognition, the PTAB’s 2022 decision awarded priority for the application of CRISPR-Cas9 in eukaryotic cells to the Broad. The University of California challenged this ruling, leading to an appeal. In 2025, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit remanded the case back to the PTAB, citing that the board had applied an incorrect legal standard and failed to consider relevant evidence in its initial decision.

After reconsidering the case with additional briefing from both parties, the PTAB concluded that the preponderance of the evidence supports the Broad’s claim. Specifically, the board found that the CVC inventors did not conceive of an embodiment of the contested invention before the Broad’s actual reduction to practice on October 5, 2012. Consequently, the PTAB denied CVC’s motion for priority.

The University of California expressed disappointment with the PTAB’s ruling, which effectively blocks 14 CVC patent applications from advancing to allowance at the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO). However, this decision does not affect CVC’s extensive portfolio of more than 60 U.S. patents and over 40 international patents covering compositions and methods for CRISPR-Cas9 gene editing across all cell types, including human cells.

This ruling marks a significant moment in the ongoing patent dispute over CRISPR-Cas9 technology, underscoring the complex interplay between foundational scientific discovery and its practical applications in biotechnology patent law.