By Kevin E. Noonan — Senior Party The Broad Institute, Harvard University, and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (collectively, “Broad”) recently filed its reply to Junior Party The University of California/Berkeley, the University of Vienna, and Emmanuelle Charpentier (collectively, “CVC”) opposition to its motion for priority in Interference No. 106,115. CVC’s opposition raised two grounds for the PTAB to base a decision that CVC should prevail in the priority phase of the interference. The first is that Broad inventor Zhang derived the invention claimed in the patents-in-interference from disclosure of CVC’s conception from Dr. Marraffini. Dr. Marraffini was in possession…
