EFTA02660108.pdf

From: Richard Kahn < Sent: Thursday, February 16, 2017 1:36 PM To: jeffrey E. Subject: Fwd: Editas Medicine: Unequivocal Patent Win Richard =ahn HBRK Associates Inc. fax cell Begin forwarded message: From: =/b>"Morgan Stanley" <ms-wmir@morganstanley.com> Subject: =/b>Editas Medicine: =nequivocal Patent Win Date: =/b>February 16, 2017 at 12:28:59 =M EST To: =/b> Reply-To: =/b><mswmir-cie-feedback@morganstanley.com> <http://www.morganstanley.com/img/cs/spacer.gif> =td class=""> = =/a> =td class=""> =td valign="middle" style="padding: 0cm 0cm 0cm 0cm" class=""> <http://www.morganstanley.com/> =Wealth = Management =/p> =/td> Subscription =otification =ebruary 16, 2017 =o:p class=""> =/span> EFTA_R1_01907447 EFTA02660108 chttp://www.morganstanley.com/img/cs/spacer.gif> = = =td class=""> =div style="font-size: 10.0pt; color: *1666666; font-weight: normal" rlass=""> = = Download report = =/div> r/td> = = <http://www.morganstanley.com/img/cs/spacer.gif> Editas =edicine: Unequivocal Patent Win Matthew Harrison — Morgan =tanley February 16, 2017 5:02 AM =MT PTAB =eclared no interference-in-fact for Editas licensed CRISPR patents, =nding the interference and cementing Editas' IP position in eukaryotic =ells. While scenarios remain where other parties can collect some =oundational CRISPR IP, Editas has derisked concerns around its freedom =o operate. The USPTO issued final judgment in favor of the Broad Institute/Editas =n the interference proceedings between the Broad Institute and the =niversity of California. The Broad Institute holds the patents =urrounding the use of CRISPR in mammalian cells which the University of =alifornia was attempting to challenge. The University of California =laimed that the Broad Institute patents were an obvious extension their =ork in prokaryotic cells. A three judge panel issued a judgment that =his was not the case and that they "enter judgment of no =nterference-infact." The full text of the decision on the motions can =e found here. Decision is a significant derisking event for Editas; =ppeal is possible, but unlikely to overturn ruling: Given the potential =f CRISPR technology we believe it is likely that the University of =alifornia will appeal the decision. We have previously written about =he IPR and appeal process here. The standards for appeal are stricter =han in the original proceeding which makes interference cases hard to =in on appeal. According to USPTO statistics from November 2016 (here) =nly —30% of cases brought to appeals between 2014 and 2016 have the =udgment reversed.Move in EDIT makes sense; Time to move investor debate =0 proof-of-concept: While there is likely to be more noise related to =P, we believe today's news should remove IP as a central investor =ebate for EDIT. Next-up is filing of the IND for CEP290 and potential =roof-of-concept in human in 2018. This =lert is sent from: =ndrew Atlas, =a href="mailto =lass=""> r/P> =ou received this because you asked to be alerted to: 2 EFTA_R1_01907448 EFTA02660109 EDITAS MEDICINE, INC. =br class=""> Please contact your FA if you want to unsubscribe from =he alerts. =/p> =span style="font-size: 10.0pt; color: #666666" class=""> = =br class="webkit-block-placeholder"> =span style="font-size: 10.0pt; color: #666666" class=""> = =br class="webkit-block-placeholder"> =!-- end content --> 3 EFTA_R1_01907449 EFTA02660110