The US Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) on Wednesday ruled in favour of the Broad Institute regarding certain CRISPR-Cas9 patents, in a dispute brought by the University of California, which challenged those patents. In its decision, the patent office stated "in light of the determination that the parties' claims do not interfere…we enter judgment of no-interference-in-fact, which neither cancels nor finally refuses either parties' claims." Shares in Editas Medicine, which has licenced the Broad Institute's technology, surged as much as 30 percent on the news. 

In the case, University of California researcher Jennifer Doudna and University of Vienna scientist Emmanuelle Charpentier contended that they invented the gene-editing technology first. The researchers initially applied for a patent for the technology in 2012, while the Broad Institute, which is affiliated with Harvard University and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), requested a fast track review process a few months later, being granted a patent for the technology in 2014. In its decision, the US Patent and Trademark Office determined that the claims presented by the two parties were considered "patentably distinct" since the Broad Institute patents cover usage of CRISPR-Cas9 in eukaryotic cells, while the University of California current claims cover the general use of CRISPR-Cas9 gene-editing technology.

"We are pleased with the USPTO's decision of 'no interference in fact' for the patents that have been granted to the Broad Institute for their innovative and fundamental work on CRISPR-Cas9 genome editing," remarked Editas CEO Katrine Bosley, adding "this important decision affirms the inventiveness of the Broad's work in translating the biology of the natural world into fundamental building blocks to create unprecedented medicines." 

Meanwhile, the University of California stated "we continue to maintain that the evidence overwhelmingly supports our position that the Doudna/Charpentier team was the first group to invent this technology for use in all settings and all cell types…and that the Broad Institute’s patents directed toward use of the CRISPR-Cas9 system in particular cell types are not patentably distinct from the Doudna/Charpentier invention," continuing "for that reason, [the university] will carefully consider all options for possible next steps in this legal process, including the possibility of an appeal of the PTAB’s decision."