The high-profile disputes surrounding an important CRISPR patent belonging to The Broad Institute, MIT and Harvard (hereinafter “the proprietors”) has attracted a lot of attention in recent years, particularly regarding the validity of priority rights that were challenged worldwide. In Europe, the patent was famously revoked by the European Patent Office (hereinafter “EPO”) due to an invalid priority claim1, though recent decisions by EPO suggest a dramatic shift in EPO’s approach that may lead to a different outcome2. Today, we will discuss the decision of the Chinese National Intellectual Property Administration (hereinafter “CNIPA”) in determining whether the proprietors’ priority claims in their CRISPR patent in China were valid, given discrepancies…