Editas Medicine, Inc.

Previous wording

Certain U.S. patents and a U.S. patent application directed to CRISPR/Cas9 that are co-owned by the Broad Institute and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (“MIT”), and in some cases Harvard (collectively referred to as “Broad”), and in-licensed by us were involved in a first interference with a U.S. patent application that is co-owned by the University of California, the University of Vienna, and Emmanuelle Charpentier (collectively referred to “CVC”). An interference is a proceeding in USPTO before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board of the USPTO (“PTAB”) to determine priority of invention of the subject matter of patent claims filed by different parties. In this first interference, the PTAB made a judgment of no interference-in-fact in favor of the Broad, which was upheld on appeal. This decision was final and bars any further interference between the same parties for claims to the same invention that was considered in the interference. As a result of this decision, the U.S. patents and application that we in-license from the Broad and others were not modified or revoked.

Current wording

Certain U.S. patents and a U.S. patent application directed to CRISPR/Cas9 that are co-owned by the Broad Institute and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (“MIT”), and in some cases Harvard (collectively referred to as “Broad”), and in-licensed by us were involved in a first interference with a U.S. patent application that is co-owned by the University of California, the University of Vienna, and Emmanuelle Charpentier (collectively referred to as “CVC”). An interference is a proceeding in the USPTO before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board of the USPTO (“PTAB”) to determine priority of invention of the subject matter of patent claims filed by different parties. In this first interference, the PTAB made a judgment of no interference-in-fact in favor of the Broad, which was upheld on appeal. This decision was final and bars any further interference between the same parties for claims to the same invention that was considered in the interference. As a result of this decision, the U.S. patents and application that we in-license from the Broad and others were not modified or revoked.

Previous wording

On September 10, 2020, the PTAB granted Broad’s motion for priority benefit while denying CVC priority benefit to their two earliest provisional patent applications. As a result, Broad entered the priority phase of the interference as “Senior Party” while CVC remained the “Junior Party” for purposes of determining which entity was the first to invent the inventions at issue. On February 28, 2022, the PTAB issued a decision regarding the priority phase of the interference determining that Broad was the first entity to invent the claims at issue. This decision was appealed by CVC and the Broad cross-appealed. On May 12, 2025, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (“CAFC”) affirmed-in-part and vacated-in-part the PTAB’s previous decision and remanded it back to the PTAB for further review. On March 26, 2026, the PTAB reaffirmed its previous decision favoring Broad. CVC retains the right to appeal the PTAB’s decision to the CAFC. It is uncertain if CVC will appeal and, if appealed, when or in what manner the CAFC will act on any such appeal.

Current wording

On September 10, 2020, the PTAB granted Broad’s motion for priority benefit while denying CVC priority benefit to their two earliest provisional patent applications. As a result, Broad entered the priority phase of the interference as “Senior Party” while CVC remained the “Junior Party” for purposes of determining which entity was the first to invent the inventions at issue. On February 28, 2022, the PTAB issued a decision regarding the priority phase of the interference determining that Broad was the first entity to invent the claims at issue. This decision was appealed by CVC and the Broad cross-appealed. On May 12, 2025, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (“CAFC”) affirmed-in-part and vacated-in-part the PTAB’s previous decision and remanded it back to the PTAB for further review. On March 26, 2026, the PTAB reaffirmed its previous decision favoring Broad. This decision by the PTAB has been appealed by CVC. It is uncertain when or in what manner the CAFC will act on this appeal.