Category: Patent Trial and Appeal Board

By Kevin E. Noonan — On March 16th, Junior Party the Broad Institute, Harvard University, and MIT (collectively, Broad) filed its Opposition to Substantive Preliminary Motion No. 1 filed on December 3rd by Senior Party Sigma-Aldrich. To recap, Sigma-Aldrich's Substantive Preliminary Motion No. 1 asked the Board to deny Broad benefit of its U.S. Provisional…

By Kevin E. Noonan — On November 19th, Senior Party Sigma-Aldrich filed its Substantive Preliminary Motion No. 1 in CRISPR Interference No. 106,132, asking the Board to substitute the Count pursuant to 37 C.F.R. §§ 41.121(a)(1)(iii) and 41.208(a)(1).  Junior Party the University of California, the University of Vienna, and Emmanuelle Charpentier (collectively "CVC") filed its…

By Kevin E. Noonan — On February 18th, Senior Party Sigma-Aldrich filed its Opposition to Substantive Preliminary Motion No. 4* from the University of California, Berkeley; the University of Vienna; and Emmanuelle Charpentier (collectively, "CVC"), Junior Party in Interference No. 106,132, wherein CVC moved to add Senior Party Sigma-Aldrich's U.S. Patent Nos. 10,731,181 and 10,745,716…

By Kevin E. Noonan — On February 18th, Senior Party Sigma-Aldrich filed its Opposition to Substantive Preliminary Motion No. 3 from the University of California, Berkeley; the University of Vienna; and Emmanuelle Charpentier (collectively, "CVC"), Junior Party in Interference No. 106,132, wherein the Junior Party moved to change the interference Count pursuant to 37 C.F.R.…

By Kevin E. Noonan — On February 18th, Sigma-Aldrich filed its Opposition to Junior Party's (the University of California, Berkeley; the University of Vienna; and Emmanuelle Charpentier; collectively, "CVC") Substantive Preliminary Motion No. 1 in Interference No. 106,132, asking the Patent Trial and Appeal Board for benefit of priority to U.S. Provisional Application No. 61/652,086,…

By Kevin E. Noonan — Inventorship determinations have been called, in some of their incarnations, "one of the muddiest concepts in the muddy metaphysics of patent law."  Mueller Brass Co. v. Reading Indus., 352 F. Supp. 1357, 1372 (E.D. Pa. 1972), aff'd, 487 F.3d 1395 (3d Cir. 1983); see In re VerHoef, 888 F.3d 1362,…

By Kevin E. Noonan — In an 82-page decision, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board granted priority for eukaryotic CRISPR to the Broad Institute, Harvard University, and MIT (collectively, "Broad") as Senior Party and against Junior Party the University of California/Berkeley, the University of Vienna, and Emmanuelle Charpentier (collectively, "CVC") (the Decision on Priority 37…

By Kevin E. Noonan — On December 3rd, Senior Party Sigma-Aldrich filed its Substantive Preliminary Motion No. 2 in Interference No. 106,133 (which names the Broad Institute, Harvard University, and MIT (collectively, Broad) as Junior Party), asking the Patent Trial and Appeal Board to remove Broad's U.S. Application No. 15/330,876 from the interference, pursuant to…

By Kevin E. Noonan — On December 3rd, Senior Party Sigma-Aldrich filed its Substantive Preliminary Motion No. 1 in Interference No. 106,133 (which names the Broad Institute, Harvard University, and MIT (collectively, Broad) as Junior Party), asking the Patent Trial and Appeal Board to deny Broad benefit of its U.S. Provisional Application No. 61/736,527, filed…

By Kevin E. Noonan — On December 3rd, Junior Party the Broad Institute, Harvard University, and MIT (collectively, Broad) filed its Contingent Preliminary Motion No. 3 in Interference No. 106,133 (which names Sigma-Aldrich as Senior Party), asking the Patent Trial and Appeal Board to designate certain claims deemed in the Declaration as corresponding to the…