To embed, copy and paste the code into your website or blog: 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 of Technology (collectively, "Broad"). CVC filed this motion, and Broad has filed its opposition. CVC set forth the precise relief requested at the outset: invalidation for improper inventorship of all Broad patents and applications in the interference having misjoinder of inventors, under 35 U.S.C. § 102(f) for patents and applications claiming priority before enactment of the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act and under 35 U.S.C. § 115(a) for patents or applications having priority after this change in U.S. patent law. In addition, CVC argued that the unnamed inventors' testimony be given no weight.