On March 13, 2008, the genome engineering company Cellectis SA initiated a patent infringement lawsuit in the US District Court in North Carolina against Precision Biosciences Inc, for infringing two of its patents directed to the use of molecules known as megaucleases in recombinant biotechnology. These two patents-in-suit, US Patent Nos. 7,309,605 and 6,610,545, are exclusively licensed from Institut Pasteur, a world-renowned, not-for-profit research institution, and are part of a portfolio of patents and applications in the endonuclease field that Cellectis owns or to which it has exclusive rights. Currently, Cellectis holds a portfolio of 42 granted patents, with more than 130 applications for additional patents pending.

Well after Cellectis filed its suit, Precision asked the US Patent Office to re-examine two related, but separate, patents also licensed exclusively to Cellectis by Institut Pasteur, US Patent Nos. 7,214,536 and 6,833,252. The Patent Office recently agreed to re-examine these two related patents. "This is a normal and common administrative procedure. The process is likely to be long, involving multiple legal steps. A final decision ultimately will be given by the US Patent Office and any conclusions drawn before this decision are premature," said Dr André Choulika, CEO of Cellectis.

The Cellectis patents to be re-examined by the US Patent Office are not the two patents-in-suit that Cellectis has accused Precision of infringing in the US District Court. And, in fact, Precision has not sought to re-examine the patents it has been accused of infringing. Nevertheless, Precision issued a press release to the industry yesterday that Cellectis believes is misleading, in that it not only overstates the Patent Office's decision to re-examine the related patents, a routine matter and one to which the patent owner has not yet responded, but conflates the Patent Office proceeding with the US District court infringement action. The US District Court and the Patent Office proceedings involve separate patents, yet Precision's press release misleadingly suggests that the Patent Office has determined that Precision does not infringe the separate patents-in-suit in the US District Court.

"We are disappointed that Precision is trying to litigate its case in the press, rather than in the Court. We are confident in the value of Cellectis' extensive patent portfolio, and we will continue to vigorously assert our patent rights in our infringement case against Precision in the US District Court," said Dr Choulika.