令和７年(行ケ)第10019号　CRISPR-Cas9中核特許優先権承継事件

2/6/2026

令和７年(行ケ)第１００１９号審決取消請求事件は、CRISPR-Cas9ゲノム編集技術の中核特許をめぐる国際的紛争で、パリ条約4条A(1)にいう「承継人（successor in title）」該当性が正面から争われた審決取消訴訟で、原告らが承継人に当たることを否定して優先権主張を認めず、新規性及び進歩性を否定して特許を無効とした審決の判断は違法であるとしてこれを取り消した事例です。
優先権承継の成否は、従来の日本の実務では、承継を証明する書面の有無を基軸とする形式的・書面ベースで判断されてきましたが、本判決は、譲渡書面という直接証拠の不存在のみを理由に承継を否定した審決を取り消し、ロックフェラー大学から原告ブロード研への「黙示の優先権譲渡」が本件PCT出願時点で成立していたと認定しました。
この判決について、生成AIに評釈をさせましたので、ご参照ください。なお、生成AIによる調査・分析結果は、公開された情報からだけの分析であり、必ずしも実情を示したものではないこと、誤った情報も含まれていることについてはご留意されたうえで、ご参照ください。

令和７年(行ケ)第１００１９号審決取消請求事件判決
https://www.courts.go.jp/assets/hanrei/hanrei-pdf-95826.pdf

Intellectual Property High Court Case No. 2025 (Gyo-Ke) 10019 – The CRISPR-Cas9 Core Patent Priority Rights Succession Case
The case of Intellectual Property High Court Case No. 2025 (Gyo-Ke) 10019, an action seeking rescission of a JPO trial decision, concerned an international dispute over a core patent relating to CRISPR-Cas9 genome-editing technology. The central issue was whether the plaintiffs qualified as a “successor in title” under Article 4A(1) of the Paris Convention.
The Intellectual Property High Court held that the JPO trial decision, which had denied the plaintiffs’ priority claim on the grounds that they were not successors in title and consequently invalidated the patent for lack of novelty and inventive step, was unlawful and should be rescinded.
Traditionally, Japanese practice regarding the succession of priority rights has tended to rely on a formal, document-based approach, focusing primarily on the existence or absence of written evidence demonstrating the transfer of rights. In this judgment, however, the court overturned the JPO’s conclusion, which had denied succession solely because no direct documentary evidence of assignment existed. Instead, the court found that an “implied assignment of priority rights” from Rockefeller University to the Broad Institute had already been established by the time the relevant PCT application was filed.
I asked a generative AI system to prepare a commentary on this judgment, and I hope you will find it informative. Please note, however, that the investigation and analysis generated by AI are based solely on publicly available information and may not necessarily reflect the actual circumstances. The analysis may also contain inaccuracies, and readers are encouraged to keep this in mind when reviewing the material.

0 Comments

よろず知財コンサルティングのブログ