The Broad Institute recently saw their CRISPR patent finally revoked before the EPO's Board of Appeal due to lack of priority. Following this decision Broad has requested a number of corrections to the Minutes of Oral Proceedings before the Board of Appeal. The requested changes are considered to be required to reflect a failure of the Board of Appeal to discuss a potential referral to the Enlarged Board of Appeal and appear to be a last-ditch attempt by the Patentee to pave the way for a petition for review.

A petition for review to the Enlarged Board of Appeal can be filed by any party adversely affected by a decision of the Board of Appeal. A review can only be based upon a procedural defect and relies upon the Board of Appeal having failed to conduct the appeal procedure correctly. In principle the review can lead to an Appeal being re-opened, but in practice very few petitions have been deemed admissible largely because the complaints in question were not raised during the appeal proceedings. In requesting the current corrections to the Minutes, Broad appears to be seeking to confirm that the Board of Appeal did not adequately discuss referring the issue of priority to the Enlarged Board of Appeal. This perceived procedural deficit may be intended to form the basis for a petition for review.

Two of the Opponents have already indicated that they do not consider any corrections to the Minutes to be required. However, substantive arguments against correction of the Minutes have yet to be filed. It is anticipated that the EPO will need to act quickly in this matter since the deadline for filing a petition for review is two months from the Board of Appeal's Decision.