By Kevin E. Noonan — On May 28th, Junior Party the Broad Institute, Harvard University, and MIT (collectively, “Broad”) filed its Substantive Preliminary Motion No. 1 in CRISPR Interference No. 106,126, where ToolGen is the Senior Party. On August 6th, ToolGen filed its Opposition and on September 24th Broad filed its Reply. Broad’s Motion sought to substitute the Count; Broad’s Proposed Count 2 is shown in comparison to the Count in the interference as declared below: Broad’s argument (the consequences of which are discussed below) was that their “best proofs” are better represented in Proposed Count 2, which encompasses dual-molecule…
