To embed, copy and paste the code into your website or blog:
Last December, Junior Party University of California/Berkeley, the University of Vienna, and Emmanuelle Charpentier (hereinafter, CVC ) filed its Substantive Motion No. 3 under 37 C.F.R. § 41.121(a)(1) asking for judgment of unpatentability for all claims in interference under 35 U.S.C. § 102(f) or (if post-AIA) 35 U.S.C. § 115(a) for failure to name all inventors of the alleged invention against Senior Party The Broad Institute, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, and Harvard University (hereinafter, Broad ) in Interference No. 106,115. Recently, Broad filed its opposition to this motion. At the time, Broad filed a responsive motion asking for leave to correct inventorship, and CVC recently filed its motion opposing Broad s attempt to effect a
To embed, copy and paste the code into your website or blog:
Last December, Junior Party University of California/Berkeley, the University of Vienna, and Emmanuelle Charpentier (hereinafter, CVC ) filed its Substantive Motion No. 3 under 37 C.F.R. § 41.121(a)(1) asking for judgment of unpatentability for all claims in interference under 35 U.S.C. § 102(f) or (if post-AIA) 35 U.S.C. § 115(a) for failure to name all inventors of the alleged invention against Senior Party The Broad Institute, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, and Harvard University (hereinafter, Broad ) in Interference No. 106,115. In support of its motion, CVC argued that Broad deliberately misidentified the inventors on its involved patents and applications in the interference. These allegations were based on differences between the named inventors in the patents- and applications-in-interference and the inventors named in a declaration by the Broad s patent attorney during a European opposition (EP 2
To embed, copy and paste the code into your website or blog:
On March 1st, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) issued its Order on the Preliminary Motions Lists submitted by Junior Party University of California/Berkeley, University of Vienna, and Emmanuelle Charpentier (collectively, CVC ) and Senior Party ToolGen Inc. in Interference No. 106,127. (Somewhat curiously, the Board did not issue an Order in Interference No. 106,126 between The Broad Institute, Harvard University, and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (collectively, Broad ) and Senior Party Toolgen on similar interfering subject matter.)
CVC had requested permission to file six proposed motions (one of which is Motion No. 6 under 37 C.F.R. § 41.208(a)(4), which seeks judgment based on priority, which was routinely deferred to the Priority Phase of the interference). CVC