1
00:00:00,040 --> 00:00:02,440
Speaker 1: Well, now it's time for our daily Bloomberg Law and Brief,

2
00:00:02,520 --> 00:00:05,040
Speaker 1: exploring legal issues in the news. It's brought to you

3
00:00:05,120 --> 00:00:10,080
Speaker 1: by American Arbitration Association. Business disputes are inevitable, resolve faster

4
00:00:10,160 --> 00:00:14,240
Speaker 1: with the American Arbitration Association, the global leader in alternative

5
00:00:14,280 --> 00:00:17,400
Speaker 1: dispute resolution for over ninety years. More at a d

6
00:00:17,560 --> 00:00:21,400
Speaker 1: r dot org. Today, Bloomberg LA host Michael Best discusses

7
00:00:21,440 --> 00:00:25,560
Speaker 1: a patent dispute over the gene editing technology known as Crisper.

8
00:00:25,600 --> 00:00:28,040
Speaker 1: He speaks with the Jacob Scherkau, a professor at New

9
00:00:28,080 --> 00:00:31,319
Speaker 1: York Law School. Why don't you explain how it is

10
00:00:31,400 --> 00:00:36,120
Speaker 1: that we ended up in a patent fight over this technology? Sure, so,

11
00:00:37,040 --> 00:00:41,159
Speaker 1: Berkeley filed some original patent applications covering their iteration of

12
00:00:41,159 --> 00:00:45,960
Speaker 1: the Crisper technology back in the Broad Institute, then filed

13
00:00:46,000 --> 00:00:48,479
Speaker 1: some of their patents covering a different version of the

14
00:00:48,520 --> 00:00:52,800
Speaker 1: technology a couple of months later. Broods patents, even though

15
00:00:52,880 --> 00:00:57,160
Speaker 1: they were filed later, were awarded first, while Berkeley's patents

16
00:00:57,240 --> 00:01:01,640
Speaker 1: languished at the PTO. This set up a particular procedure

17
00:01:01,760 --> 00:01:05,000
Speaker 1: at the Patent office called an interference. What what does

18
00:01:05,040 --> 00:01:08,280
Speaker 1: that mean? An interference in patent law, great question. It's

19
00:01:08,280 --> 00:01:10,920
Speaker 1: one of the more arcane and complicated procedures at the

20
00:01:10,920 --> 00:01:14,440
Speaker 1: Patent Office, which probably is saying a lot. And interference

21
00:01:14,520 --> 00:01:18,800
Speaker 1: is where one party declares that someone else's patents are

22
00:01:18,959 --> 00:01:24,039
Speaker 1: interfering with their ability to get their's issued by the PTO.

23
00:01:24,560 --> 00:01:28,039
Speaker 1: In this particular case, Berkeley was claiming that the grant

24
00:01:28,120 --> 00:01:32,280
Speaker 1: of Brodes patents were interfering with their ability to get

25
00:01:32,319 --> 00:01:35,640
Speaker 1: their patents issued by the Patent Office. To resolve that,

26
00:01:35,680 --> 00:01:38,600
Speaker 1: they needed a decision from the Patent Trial and Appeal

27
00:01:38,640 --> 00:01:42,120
Speaker 1: Board as to whether that was true. What exactly did

28
00:01:42,120 --> 00:01:45,200
Speaker 1: the Patent Trial and Appeal Board rule? Sure? So, the

29
00:01:45,200 --> 00:01:49,160
Speaker 1: Patent Trial and Appeal Board said, even though we originally

30
00:01:49,280 --> 00:01:53,280
Speaker 1: thought that Brodes patents were interfering with Berkeley's patent application,

31
00:01:53,880 --> 00:01:56,800
Speaker 1: that's not in fact true. The particular judgment that was

32
00:01:56,880 --> 00:01:59,000
Speaker 1: handed down from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board was

33
00:01:59,040 --> 00:02:02,960
Speaker 1: called a no interference in fact and essentially a do over.

34
00:02:03,520 --> 00:02:05,480
Speaker 1: Berkeley gets to go back to the Panent Office and

35
00:02:05,480 --> 00:02:08,720
Speaker 1: continue to prosecute their patent application. But and this is

36
00:02:08,720 --> 00:02:13,760
Speaker 1: where things get particularly important. Broods patents remain valid going forward.

37
00:02:14,080 --> 00:02:18,160
Speaker 1: So does that mean that both cal Berkeley's scientists and

38
00:02:18,360 --> 00:02:22,200
Speaker 1: Broad scientists may be able to licensees technology and make

39
00:02:22,240 --> 00:02:24,480
Speaker 1: a lot of money both of them. That is definitely

40
00:02:24,480 --> 00:02:27,720
Speaker 1: a possibility. It's going to depend on what Berkeley's strategic

41
00:02:27,880 --> 00:02:30,679
Speaker 1: move is next. They could appeal the decision to the U. S.

42
00:02:30,720 --> 00:02:33,320
Speaker 1: Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, which could either

43
00:02:33,360 --> 00:02:36,800
Speaker 1: affirm what the Patent Office had said or reverse it.

44
00:02:37,120 --> 00:02:39,080
Speaker 1: At the same time, Berkeley could also go back to

45
00:02:39,160 --> 00:02:42,200
Speaker 1: the patent office and see exactly what the examiner is

46
00:02:42,240 --> 00:02:45,000
Speaker 1: going to say about whether they're entitled to patents that

47
00:02:45,040 --> 00:02:48,480
Speaker 1: are broader or narrower than the ones that Broad has. Now,

48
00:02:49,800 --> 00:02:52,639
Speaker 1: that's j gb shirk Our, professor at New York Law School,

49
00:02:52,639 --> 00:02:55,120
Speaker 1: speaking with the Bloomberg Lah host Michael Best. You can

50
00:02:55,120 --> 00:02:57,959
Speaker 1: listen to Bloomberg Law weekdays at one pm Wall Street

51
00:02:58,040 --> 00:03:01,720
Speaker 1: Time here on bloom Radio and Now. Among the top

52
00:03:01,800 --> 00:03:04,920
Speaker 1: legal stories from Bloomberg Law, a California law that bars

53
00:03:05,000 --> 00:03:09,000
Speaker 1: movie websites such as IMDb from posting actors ages may

54
00:03:09,000 --> 00:03:11,720
Speaker 1: be doomed. A federal judge says he has free speech

55
00:03:11,720 --> 00:03:14,320
Speaker 1: concerns about the law, which was meant to address age

56
00:03:14,360 --> 00:03:17,639
Speaker 1: discrimination in Hollywood. A lawyer for the state of California

57
00:03:17,800 --> 00:03:21,120
Speaker 1: says the legislature concluded that existing laws weren't effective in

58
00:03:21,160 --> 00:03:25,120
Speaker 1: preventing actors from being discriminated against due to age. House

59
00:03:25,160 --> 00:03:27,840
Speaker 1: Republicans are renewing a legal fight with New York and

60
00:03:27,880 --> 00:03:32,200
Speaker 1: Massachusetts over allegations concerning x On Mobile. Attorneys General Eric

61
00:03:32,200 --> 00:03:35,440
Speaker 1: Schneiderman and Maria Healey were issued subpoenas concerning their roles

62
00:03:35,440 --> 00:03:38,920
Speaker 1: and probes into whether x On Mobile misled investors about

63
00:03:38,920 --> 00:03:42,480
Speaker 1: the potential impact of climate change. Both Schneiderman and Healy

64
00:03:42,680 --> 00:03:47,360
Speaker 1: said they'd ignore the demands, which seek detailed information about

65
00:03:47,360 --> 00:03:49,920
Speaker 1: the probes. And that's this morning's Bloomberg Law Brie. If

66
00:03:50,000 --> 00:03:52,640
Speaker 1: you can find more legal news at Bloomberg Law dot

67
00:03:52,680 --> 00:03:56,120
Speaker 1: com and Bloomberg b NA dot com. Attorneys will find

68
00:03:56,160 --> 00:03:59,440
Speaker 1: exceptional legal research and business development tools there as well.

69
00:03:59,720 --> 00:04:02,960
Speaker 1: Visit Bloomberg Law dot com and Bloomberg Bena dot com

70
00:04:03,240 --> 00:04:04,480
Speaker 1: for more information