By Kevin E. Noonan — Senior Party The Broad Institute, Harvard University, and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (collectively, “Broad”) filed its motion in opposition to Junior Party The University of California/Berkeley, the University of Vienna, and Emmanuelle Charpentier (collectively, “CVC”) motion for priority in Interference No. 106,115. Although Broad argued in its own priority motion that the invention as defined by the Count was one that could only be conceived once it was reduced to practice (a standard originally applied to since-invalidated claims to isolated DNA) and, not coincidentally that Broad’s earliest actual reduction to practice (ARTP) antedated CVC’s…
