E-mail Newsletter

  • Enter your e-mail address below to receive the "Patent Docs" e-mail newsletter.

Enter your email address:

Delivered by FeedBurner

Contact the Docs

Docs on Twitter


About the Authors

  • The Authors and Contributors of "Patent Docs" are patent attorneys and agents, many of whom hold doctorates in a diverse array of disciplines.

Disclaimer

  • "Patent Docs" does not contain any legal advice whatsoever. This weblog is for informational purposes only, and its publication does not create an attorney-client relationship. In addition, nothing on "Patent Docs" constitutes a solicitation for business. This weblog is intended primarily for other attorneys. Moreover, "Patent Docs" is the personal weblog of the Authors; it is not edited by the Authors' employers or clients and, as such, no part of this weblog may be so attributed. All posts on "Patent Docs" should be double-checked for their accuracy and current applicability.

Pharma-50-transparent_216px_red

Become a Fan

« Cloud9 Technologies LLC v. IPC Systems, Inc. (PTAB 2017) | Main | Power Analytics Corp. v. Operation Technology, Inc. (C.D. Cal. 2017) »

July 31, 2017

Comments

Hi Kevin,
Can you please post a link to the brief? Thanks.

I have not studied these arguments in detail, but it strikes me that Professor Doudna's comments make it clear that SHE was far from certain that CRISPR-Cas9 could be made to work in eukaryotes. I've heard her lecture and believe she is THE lead inventor in this science. So, if something wasn't obvious to her, I find ii hard to believe that it was obvious to anyone else.

Dear Don:

Substantially the PTAB's basis for their decision.

Thanks for the comment

This is an interesting case and will teach us during further progress of the case specially on reasonable expectation of success.

Say for example if a plasmid construct is being claimed in a patent for expression of the gene of interest in a bacterial system can also work well within the eukaryotic system may be with minor changes or modification well known in the art. Hence no one can claim a separate patent for the same.

However this technology i.e. a CRISPR-Cas9 system is a combination of protein and ribonucleic acid (“RNA”) that can alter the genetic sequence of an organism is very new. So this will be come clear in near future whether this can work well within the eukaryotic system without any undue experiments or not. I mean reasonable expectation of success in the Berkeley application would be answered.

The comments to this entry are closed.

November 2017

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
      1 2 3 4
5 6 7 8 9 10 11
12 13 14 15 16 17 18
19 20 21 22 23 24 25
26 27 28 29 30