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.
2018 Juristant Badge - MBHB_165
Juristat #4 Overall Rank

E-mail Newsletter

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

Contact the Docs

Docs on Twitter


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.
Juristat_165
Juristat #8 Overall Rank

Pharma-50-transparent_216px_red

« Yu v. Apple (Fed. Cir. 2021) | Main | CVC Opposes Broad's Motion to Exclude Evidence and Broad Files Reply »

June 15, 2021

Comments

Your posts concerning this ongoing proceeding are informative and appreciated.

Thanks, R

I second what R. said!

Also, what does it mean that "Broad's opposition to this motion asserts existentially ..."? Is that just a typo for "essentially"? Maybe it really is existential and I'm just not appreciating how.

Thanks.

-hr

My chance to wax a little philosophically, hr - and I'm not a philosopher. "Essentially" may be better but the idea was Broad says the CVC inventors themselves didn't think CRISPR was going to be immediately adaptable to eukaryotic cells (no matter what they say now).

Thanks for the comment

OK, thank you. That makes sense.

Happy JNID and TGIF!

-hr

The comments to this entry are closed.

December 2021

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 31