By Kevin E. Noonan –

Neither the Parties nor the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) have been resting in addressing the decision by the Federal Circuit that vacated and remanded the Board’s decision awarding priority in Interference No. 106,115 to Senior Party The Broad Institute, Harvard University, and MIT (collectively, “Broad”; Junior Party is the Regents of the University of California, Berkeley; the University of Vienna; and Emmanuelle Charpentier, collectively designated “CVC”; while this reminder may not be necessary it has been a while).  On August 15, 2025, the Parties and the Board participated in a conference call to determine the procedural bases for going forward.

First order of business was a change in the composition of the PTAB panel hearing the interference.  According to Paper 2900, Administrative Patent Judges (APJs) Sally Gardner Lane and James T. Moore were replaced by APJs Rachel H. Townsend and David Cotta, joined by APJ Deborah Katz.

The Board then handed down an Order (Paper 2901; see below) regarding the further progress of the interference, which determined the order in which the Parties’ briefs are discussed.  Both parties were given the opportunity to submit briefing supplementing their priority statements and arguments, to be submitted on the same day (October 10, 2025; limited to 25 pages).  These briefs are then to be followed by a response/opposition to their opponents briefs (November 7, 2025; limited to 25 pages), followed by a Reply by each party (December 5, 2025; limited to 10 pages).  Each Party was permitted to include argument regarding the issue of derivation, which the Board determined had been included in the remand order, specifically:

“On remand, the later party to reduce to practice will have the opportunity to show, under a conception date established by the correct standard . . . (2) it had ‘prior conception of the claimed subject matter and communication of the conception to the adverse claimant.’”  (Regents, 136 F.4th at 1382 (quoting Price v. Symsek, 988 F.2d 1187, 1190 (Fed. Cir. 1993) (awarding priority where there was “prior conception of the claimed subject matter and communication of the conception to the adverse claimant.”)).

The Parties are precluded from submitting new evidence without Board authorization.

In an Appendix to the Order is reproduced a jointly-filed e-mail to the Board regarding the Parties proposals.

The Parties each satisfied the deadlines imposed by the Board, and further posts will set forth each Parties arguments, Oppositions to their opponent’s arguments, and Replies.  Also discussed in a future post will be the Parties’ renewed Priority Statements.

To date there has been no Order from the Board setting the date and time for Oral Hearing.