In University of California v. Broad Institute, Inc., No. 2017-1907 (Fed. Cir. Sept. 10, 2018), the CAFC affirmed the PTAB’s holding that there was no interference-in-fact between a pending University of California patent application and the claims of twelve patents and one application owned by Broad. The PTAB had found that Broad’s claims directed to the use of a CRISPR-Cas9 system in eukaryotic cells were separately patentable over the University of California’s claims that did not refer to a particular cell type or environment. On appeal, the CAFC held the PTAB had properly considered the lack of specific instructions in the prior art describing how to apply CRISPR-Cas9 in eukaryotic cells in conjunction with additional evidence supporting the PTAB’s determination.