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

« Ukrpatent Continues Normal Operations Despite Russian Aggression | Main | USPTO Terminates Engagement with Rospatent and EAPO »

March 07, 2022

Comments

If CVC were to try to assert its cell-agnostic method claims against the practice of the method in eukaryotes, what principle would stop them? Prosecution history estoppel? Issue preclusion? Reverse doctrine of equivalents?

Per my earlier comment, I've now crunched through the main portions of the opinion. While it's not my scientific field at all, the decision makes a good amount of sense.

I do appreciate the seeming "injustice" as the OP describes it or cognitive dissonance that results from the opinion. That was the same impression I had after reading it. I guess it depends on how you look at what happened. On the one hand, if you view the single-guide RNA as the core inventive aspect, and what Broad later did with that as just a technical "implementation detail" then yes, it does feel a bit unfair to CVC. After all, CVC came up with single-guide by itself with no help from anybody, but Broad couldn't have accomplished anything without first having single-guide as a starting point. On the other hand, if you consider what Broad did as a separate and distinct invention all by itself, then maybe it's not so unfair to CVC. I'm leaning toward the latter, but again, it's not my field of expertise.

@James Scott Elmer: The same question came to
my mind. PHE seems like a good candidate. Or maybe prosecution disclaimer so the claims aren't construed to cover eukaryotic cells. Conversely, if they are construed that way, then based on the opinion (assuming it's not revised or reversed), don't they clearly fail written description/enablement? Maybe that would be a type of issue preclusion like you said.

JES: I will leave it to others to parse through which doctrine would apply (although I may think about this a little more and get back to you). I just cannot see a district court judge permitting patentee CVC to bring suit successfully against a defendant, having a license to Broad's patents, whom the PTO (assuming affirmance by the Federal Circuit) has determined is NOT entitled to a patent on the subject matter in suit. If only as a matter of equity.

We shall see. Thanks for the comment.

The comments to this entry are closed.

December 2022

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