The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit’s recent ruling in the high-profile CRISPR gene-editing technology patent dispute has provided critical clarity on the conception standard in patent law. The decision, which sends the case back to the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB), emphasizes how to determine when an invention was conceived and how later modifications factor into that date.
While the ruling addresses a long-standing and complex legal battle, it offers significant insights for patent practitioners. Lathrop GPM Partner Laura Labeots was recently featured in an article by Law360, offering her perspective on how the “skilled-artisan” requirement will likely apply when determining conception, particularly in cases where the effects and scope of post-conception modifications are in question.
Labeots notes that the court’s focus on whether a person of ordinary skill in the art could have put the invention to practice without “extensive research or experimentation” is key.
“It’s sort of vague what the term ‘extensive’ means,” Labeots says. “Does that mean five experiments? Does that mean six months’ worth of work? Or 200 experiments? It’s kind of a gray area, what ‘extensive’ experimentation means and what someone of ordinary skill would be able to do.”
Read the full Law360 article here [SUBSCRIPTION REQUIRED]: Fed. Circ. Erases MIT, Broad CRISPR Win In Conception Fight