Speaker 1: Well, now it's time for our daily Bloomberg Law and Brief,
Speaker 1: exploring legal issues in the news. It's brought to you
Speaker 1: by American Arbitration Association. Business disputes are inevitable, resolve faster
Speaker 1: with the American Arbitration Association, the global leader in alternative
Speaker 1: dispute resolution for over ninety years. More at a d
Speaker 1: r dot org. Today, Bloomberg LA host Michael Best discusses
Speaker 1: a patent dispute over the gene editing technology known as Crisper.
Speaker 1: He speaks with the Jacob Scherkau, a professor at New
Speaker 1: York Law School. Why don't you explain how it is
Speaker 1: that we ended up in a patent fight over this technology? Sure, so,
Speaker 1: Berkeley filed some original patent applications covering their iteration of
Speaker 1: the Crisper technology back in the Broad Institute, then filed
Speaker 1: some of their patents covering a different version of the
Speaker 1: technology a couple of months later. Broods patents, even though
Speaker 1: they were filed later, were awarded first, while Berkeley's patents
Speaker 1: languished at the PTO. This set up a particular procedure
Speaker 1: at the Patent office called an interference. What what does
Speaker 1: that mean? An interference in patent law, great question. It's
Speaker 1: one of the more arcane and complicated procedures at the
Speaker 1: Patent Office, which probably is saying a lot. And interference
Speaker 1: is where one party declares that someone else's patents are
Speaker 1: interfering with their ability to get their's issued by the PTO.
Speaker 1: In this particular case, Berkeley was claiming that the grant
Speaker 1: of Brodes patents were interfering with their ability to get
Speaker 1: their patents issued by the Patent Office. To resolve that,
Speaker 1: they needed a decision from the Patent Trial and Appeal
Speaker 1: Board as to whether that was true. What exactly did
Speaker 1: the Patent Trial and Appeal Board rule? Sure? So, the
Speaker 1: Patent Trial and Appeal Board said, even though we originally
Speaker 1: thought that Brodes patents were interfering with Berkeley's patent application,
Speaker 1: that's not in fact true. The particular judgment that was
Speaker 1: handed down from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board was
Speaker 1: called a no interference in fact and essentially a do over.
Speaker 1: Berkeley gets to go back to the Panent Office and
Speaker 1: continue to prosecute their patent application. But and this is
Speaker 1: where things get particularly important. Broods patents remain valid going forward.
Speaker 1: So does that mean that both cal Berkeley's scientists and
Speaker 1: Broad scientists may be able to licensees technology and make
Speaker 1: a lot of money both of them. That is definitely
Speaker 1: a possibility. It's going to depend on what Berkeley's strategic
Speaker 1: move is next. They could appeal the decision to the U. S.
Speaker 1: Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, which could either
Speaker 1: affirm what the Patent Office had said or reverse it.
Speaker 1: At the same time, Berkeley could also go back to
Speaker 1: the patent office and see exactly what the examiner is
Speaker 1: going to say about whether they're entitled to patents that
Speaker 1: are broader or narrower than the ones that Broad has. Now,
Speaker 1: that's j gb shirk Our, professor at New York Law School,
Speaker 1: speaking with the Bloomberg Lah host Michael Best. You can
Speaker 1: listen to Bloomberg Law weekdays at one pm Wall Street
Speaker 1: Time here on bloom Radio and Now. Among the top
Speaker 1: legal stories from Bloomberg Law, a California law that bars
Speaker 1: movie websites such as IMDb from posting actors ages may
Speaker 1: be doomed. A federal judge says he has free speech
Speaker 1: concerns about the law, which was meant to address age
Speaker 1: discrimination in Hollywood. A lawyer for the state of California
Speaker 1: says the legislature concluded that existing laws weren't effective in
Speaker 1: preventing actors from being discriminated against due to age. House
Speaker 1: Republicans are renewing a legal fight with New York and
Speaker 1: Massachusetts over allegations concerning x On Mobile. Attorneys General Eric
Speaker 1: Schneiderman and Maria Healey were issued subpoenas concerning their roles
Speaker 1: and probes into whether x On Mobile misled investors about
Speaker 1: the potential impact of climate change. Both Schneiderman and Healy
Speaker 1: said they'd ignore the demands, which seek detailed information about
Speaker 1: the probes. And that's this morning's Bloomberg Law Brie. If
Speaker 1: you can find more legal news at Bloomberg Law dot
Speaker 1: com and Bloomberg b NA dot com. Attorneys will find
Speaker 1: exceptional legal research and business development tools there as well.
Speaker 1: Visit Bloomberg Law dot com and Bloomberg Bena dot com
Speaker 1: for more information