In a major turn in the ongoing legal battle over the foundational technology behind CRISPR-Cas9 gene editing, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has ordered the USPTO’s Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) to revisit its 2022 decision that awarded key CRISPR-Cas9 patents to the Broad Institute. The court’s decision, released on May 12, 2025, reignites a high-stakes patent interference proceeding between two rival camps The Broad Institute (affiliated with MIT and Harvard) UC Berkeley, Emmanuelle Charpentier, and the University of Vienna (CVC).
The Federal Circuit ruled that the PTAB applied the wrong legal standard in its 2022 judgment and failed to consider critical evidence submitted by the CVC team. As a result, the case is now being reconsidered by the PTAB. If CVC regains control over these patents, the effects could be wide-reaching; startups and companies currently relying on Broad’s IP may have to renegotiate licenses or pay new royalties. The freedom to operate (FTO) landscape for CRISPR tools may change, affecting investments and R&D. Over $400 million in existing licensing deals tied to Broad’s IP could be disrupted.
Patent interference disputes like this have serious consequences, as they determine who gets paid, who can operate freely, and who leads in a fast-moving field like biotech. The key takeaway for inventors, founders or investors is that patent rights aren’t just technical; they are strategic. Outcomes of such disputes can drive shifts in market structure, influence investment decisions, and ultimately dictate which organisations or individuals gain and maintain a competitive advantage.