Patent Law Weblog
recent posts
- Teva Pharmaceuticals International v. Eli Lilly & Co. (Fed. Cir. 2026)
- USPTO Extends Artificial Intelligence Search Automated Pilot Program (ASAP!)
- USPTO Announces That It Has Turned the Corner on Unexamined Application Backlog
- Reasons for the PTAB’s Priority Determination in Broad’s Favor (Perhaps)
- Mexico Publishes Amendments to Intellectual Property Law
about
Category: Patent Trial and Appeal Board
-
By Kevin E. Noonan — Last fall the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, in Interference no. 106,115, granted leave to Junior Party The University of California/Berkeley, the University of Vienna, and Emmanuelle Charpentier (collectively, "CVC") to file a dispositive motion for improper inventorship against Senior Party The Broad Institute, Harvard University, and the Massachusetts Institute…
-
By Kevin E. Noonan — At the end of October, in Interference No. 106,115 between Senior Party The Broad Institute, Harvard University, and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (collectively, "Broad") and Junior Party the University of California/Berkeley, the University of Vienna, and Emmanuelle Charpentier (collectively, "CVC"), the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) consented to…
-
By Kevin E. Noonan — Almost three weeks ago, on October 31st, Junior Party the University of California/Berkeley, the University of Vienna, and Emmanuelle Charpentier (collectively, "CVC") filed its priority motion in Interference No. 106,115, setting forth for the first time its earliest conception date (March 1, 2012) and evidence of that conception for practicing…
-
By Kevin E. Noonan — Since the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) rendered its decisions on Motions in Interference No. 106,115, Senior Party The Broad Institute, Harvard University, and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (collectively, "Broad") and Junior Party the University of California/Berkeley, the University of Vienna, and Emmanuelle Charpentier (collectively, "CVC") have filed…
-
By James Lovsin — Today, the Supreme Court granted petitions for a writ of certiorari to review the Federal Circuit's decision in Arthrex, Inc. v. Smith & Nephew, Inc., in which the court of appeals held how administrative patent judges were appointed to the Patent Trial and Appeal Board ("PTAB") violated the Appointments Clause of…
-
By Kevin E. Noonan — In the Patent Trial and Appeal Board's decision on motions issued September 10th in Interference No. 106,115 (see "PTAB Decides Parties' Motions in CRISPR Interference") between Senior Party The Broad Institute, Harvard University, and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (collectively, "Broad") and Junior Party the University of California/Berkeley, the University of…
-
By Kevin E. Noonan — In the Patent Trial and Appeal Board's decision on motions issued September 10th in Interference No. 106,115 (see "PTAB Decides Parties' Motions in CRISPR Interference") between Senior Party The Broad Institute, Harvard University, and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (collectively, "Broad") and Junior Party the University of California/Berkeley, the University of…
-
By Kevin E. Noonan — For those with long memories, last August the Patent Trial and Appeal Board received proposed motions from the parties (University of California/Berkeley, the University of Vienna, and Emmanuelle Charpentier, Junior Party, and The Broad Institute, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, and Harvard University, Senior Party) in Interference No. 106,115. Thereafter, the…
-
By Kevin E. Noonan — In the Patent Trial and Appeal Board's decision on motions issued September 10th in Interference No. 106,115 (see "PTAB Decides Parties' Motions in CRISPR Interference") between Senior Party The Broad Institute, Harvard University, and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (collectively, "Broad") and Junior Party the University of California/Berkeley, the University of Vienna,…
-
By Kevin E. Noonan — Judge Giles Sutherland Rich's most famous aphorism in patent law is "the name of the game is the claim."* This rubric is important to keep in mind when considering the Patent Trial and Appeal Board's decision on motions issued September 10th in Interference No. 106,115 (see "PTAB Decides Parties' Motions in…
Patent Docs 