Intellectual Property Law
New Matter VOLUME 50, EDITION 3, FALL 2025
Content
- 2025 New Matter Author Submission Guidelines
- Contents
- Contract Ambiguity Leads to Mistrial In $122m Biotech Royalty Dispute: Lessons from Genentech v. Biogen
- Copyright Roundup
- Federal Circuit Report
- Inside This Issue
- INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY SECTION Executive Committee 2025-2026
- INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY SECTION Interest Group Representatives 2025-2026
- IP and Art: An International Perspective
- Letter from the Chair
- Letter from the Editor-in-Chief
- MCLE Self-Study Article
- Ninth Circuit Report
- Online Cle For Participatory Credit
- Quarterly International IP Law Update
- The California Lawyers Association Intellectual Property Alumni
- The European Patent Corner
- The Licensing Corner
- Trade Secrets: An Interview with Chris Buntel of Tangibly
- TTAB Decisions and Developments
- CRISPR-Cas9 Appeal
CRISPR-Cas9 Appeal
D. BENJAMIN BORSON
Borson Law Group P.C.
CRISPR-Cas9 Appeal
Patent No. 8,697.359
Slip Op. 2022-1594, 2022-1653
Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
12 May 2025
Introduction
IN A DECISION RENDERED ON 12 MAY 2025, Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit resolved motions and arguments between the University of California (hereinafter "UC"), the University of Vienna and Emmanuelle Charpentier (Collectively, "Regents") and the Broad Institute (MT and Harvard, collectively "Broad"). An earlier edition of New Matter (Vol. 45(1):15-35 2020) introduced some of the issues related to an interference proceeding between UC and Broad based on patents filed by UC and Broad. The present appeal was heard by Judges Reyna, Hughes, and Cunningham. The decision was written by Judge Reyna.