The journal NATURE discusses the CRISPR patent interference
Within a post by the journal NATURE on the CRISPR patent interference, one finds the text
When will we find out who has won?
The law that did away with the United States’ first-to-file policy also introduced changes intended to expedite interferences. But a verdict on the CRISPR patents could still be months, or even years, away. And given the high financial stakes, many expect the losing party to appeal against the USPTO interference decision, further dragging out the process
One notes that the AIA is not the law that did away with the United States’ first-to-file policy. The AIA did away with the previous "first to invent" law.
The complexities of interference proceedings in a "first to file" world are mentioned in
America Invents Act:
Comment on First-Inventor-to-File
In an interference, the party who filed an earlier patent application is called the "senior party". Here, the Doudna people are deemed the senior party.
The not-senior party (here the Zhang people) bears the burden of proving that he or she is the first inventor. An issue will be that the Zhang people will likely say that Doudna people did NOT enable CRISPR as to humans.
The NATURE article Nature 531, 149 (10 March 2016 is located: