EXCERPT

On Wednesday, the three-judge panel from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) hearing the interference case issued a judgement of no interference-in-fact, stopping UC's bid for intellectual property underpinning the most lucrative applications of genome editing.

"Broad has persuaded us that the parties claim patentably distinct subject matter," the panel wrote in its decision. "[Broad's] claims, which are all limited to CRISPR/Cas9 systems in a eukaryotic environment, are not drawn to the same invention as UC's claims, which are all directed to CRISPR/Cas9 systems not restricted to any environment."