WEBVTT - Bloomberg Law Brief: Patent fight over gene-editing technology

0:00:00.040 --> 0:00:02.440
<v Speaker 1>Well, now it's time for our daily Bloomberg Law and Brief,

0:00:02.520 --> 0:00:05.040
<v Speaker 1>exploring legal issues in the news. It's brought to you

0:00:05.120 --> 0:00:10.080
<v Speaker 1>by American Arbitration Association. Business disputes are inevitable, resolve faster

0:00:10.160 --> 0:00:14.240
<v Speaker 1>with the American Arbitration Association, the global leader in alternative

0:00:14.280 --> 0:00:17.400
<v Speaker 1>dispute resolution for over ninety years. More at a d

0:00:17.560 --> 0:00:21.400
<v Speaker 1>r dot org. Today, Bloomberg LA host Michael Best discusses

0:00:21.440 --> 0:00:25.560
<v Speaker 1>a patent dispute over the gene editing technology known as Crisper.

0:00:25.600 --> 0:00:28.040
<v Speaker 1>He speaks with the Jacob Scherkau, a professor at New

0:00:28.080 --> 0:00:31.319
<v Speaker 1>York Law School. Why don't you explain how it is

0:00:31.400 --> 0:00:36.120
<v Speaker 1>that we ended up in a patent fight over this technology? Sure, so,

0:00:37.040 --> 0:00:41.159
<v Speaker 1>Berkeley filed some original patent applications covering their iteration of

0:00:41.159 --> 0:00:45.960
<v Speaker 1>the Crisper technology back in the Broad Institute, then filed

0:00:46.000 --> 0:00:48.479
<v Speaker 1>some of their patents covering a different version of the

0:00:48.520 --> 0:00:52.800
<v Speaker 1>technology a couple of months later. Broods patents, even though

0:00:52.880 --> 0:00:57.160
<v Speaker 1>they were filed later, were awarded first, while Berkeley's patents

0:00:57.240 --> 0:01:01.640
<v Speaker 1>languished at the PTO. This set up a particular procedure

0:01:01.760 --> 0:01:05.000
<v Speaker 1>at the Patent office called an interference. What what does

0:01:05.040 --> 0:01:08.280
<v Speaker 1>that mean? An interference in patent law, great question. It's

0:01:08.280 --> 0:01:10.920
<v Speaker 1>one of the more arcane and complicated procedures at the

0:01:10.920 --> 0:01:14.440
<v Speaker 1>Patent Office, which probably is saying a lot. And interference

0:01:14.520 --> 0:01:18.800
<v Speaker 1>is where one party declares that someone else's patents are

0:01:18.959 --> 0:01:24.039
<v Speaker 1>interfering with their ability to get their's issued by the PTO.

0:01:24.560 --> 0:01:28.039
<v Speaker 1>In this particular case, Berkeley was claiming that the grant

0:01:28.120 --> 0:01:32.280
<v Speaker 1>of Brodes patents were interfering with their ability to get

0:01:32.319 --> 0:01:35.640
<v Speaker 1>their patents issued by the Patent Office. To resolve that,

0:01:35.680 --> 0:01:38.600
<v Speaker 1>they needed a decision from the Patent Trial and Appeal

0:01:38.640 --> 0:01:42.120
<v Speaker 1>Board as to whether that was true. What exactly did

0:01:42.120 --> 0:01:45.200
<v Speaker 1>the Patent Trial and Appeal Board rule? Sure? So, the

0:01:45.200 --> 0:01:49.160
<v Speaker 1>Patent Trial and Appeal Board said, even though we originally

0:01:49.280 --> 0:01:53.280
<v Speaker 1>thought that Brodes patents were interfering with Berkeley's patent application,

0:01:53.880 --> 0:01:56.800
<v Speaker 1>that's not in fact true. The particular judgment that was

0:01:56.880 --> 0:01:59.000
<v Speaker 1>handed down from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board was

0:01:59.040 --> 0:02:02.960
<v Speaker 1>called a no interference in fact and essentially a do over.

0:02:03.520 --> 0:02:05.480
<v Speaker 1>Berkeley gets to go back to the Panent Office and

0:02:05.480 --> 0:02:08.720
<v Speaker 1>continue to prosecute their patent application. But and this is

0:02:08.720 --> 0:02:13.760
<v Speaker 1>where things get particularly important. Broods patents remain valid going forward.

0:02:14.080 --> 0:02:18.160
<v Speaker 1>So does that mean that both cal Berkeley's scientists and

0:02:18.360 --> 0:02:22.200
<v Speaker 1>Broad scientists may be able to licensees technology and make

0:02:22.240 --> 0:02:24.480
<v Speaker 1>a lot of money both of them. That is definitely

0:02:24.480 --> 0:02:27.720
<v Speaker 1>a possibility. It's going to depend on what Berkeley's strategic

0:02:27.880 --> 0:02:30.679
<v Speaker 1>move is next. They could appeal the decision to the U. S.

0:02:30.720 --> 0:02:33.320
<v Speaker 1>Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, which could either

0:02:33.360 --> 0:02:36.800
<v Speaker 1>affirm what the Patent Office had said or reverse it.

0:02:37.120 --> 0:02:39.080
<v Speaker 1>At the same time, Berkeley could also go back to

0:02:39.160 --> 0:02:42.200
<v Speaker 1>the patent office and see exactly what the examiner is

0:02:42.240 --> 0:02:45.000
<v Speaker 1>going to say about whether they're entitled to patents that

0:02:45.040 --> 0:02:48.480
<v Speaker 1>are broader or narrower than the ones that Broad has. Now,

0:02:49.800 --> 0:02:52.639
<v Speaker 1>that's j gb shirk Our, professor at New York Law School,

0:02:52.639 --> 0:02:55.120
<v Speaker 1>speaking with the Bloomberg Lah host Michael Best. You can

0:02:55.120 --> 0:02:57.959
<v Speaker 1>listen to Bloomberg Law weekdays at one pm Wall Street

0:02:58.040 --> 0:03:01.720
<v Speaker 1>Time here on bloom Radio and Now. Among the top

0:03:01.800 --> 0:03:04.920
<v Speaker 1>legal stories from Bloomberg Law, a California law that bars

0:03:05.000 --> 0:03:09.000
<v Speaker 1>movie websites such as IMDb from posting actors ages may

0:03:09.000 --> 0:03:11.720
<v Speaker 1>be doomed. A federal judge says he has free speech

0:03:11.720 --> 0:03:14.320
<v Speaker 1>concerns about the law, which was meant to address age

0:03:14.360 --> 0:03:17.639
<v Speaker 1>discrimination in Hollywood. A lawyer for the state of California

0:03:17.800 --> 0:03:21.120
<v Speaker 1>says the legislature concluded that existing laws weren't effective in

0:03:21.160 --> 0:03:25.120
<v Speaker 1>preventing actors from being discriminated against due to age. House

0:03:25.160 --> 0:03:27.840
<v Speaker 1>Republicans are renewing a legal fight with New York and

0:03:27.880 --> 0:03:32.200
<v Speaker 1>Massachusetts over allegations concerning x On Mobile. Attorneys General Eric

0:03:32.200 --> 0:03:35.440
<v Speaker 1>Schneiderman and Maria Healey were issued subpoenas concerning their roles

0:03:35.440 --> 0:03:38.920
<v Speaker 1>and probes into whether x On Mobile misled investors about

0:03:38.920 --> 0:03:42.480
<v Speaker 1>the potential impact of climate change. Both Schneiderman and Healy

0:03:42.680 --> 0:03:47.360
<v Speaker 1>said they'd ignore the demands, which seek detailed information about

0:03:47.360 --> 0:03:49.920
<v Speaker 1>the probes. And that's this morning's Bloomberg Law Brie. If

0:03:50.000 --> 0:03:52.640
<v Speaker 1>you can find more legal news at Bloomberg Law dot

0:03:52.680 --> 0:03:56.120
<v Speaker 1>com and Bloomberg b NA dot com. Attorneys will find

0:03:56.160 --> 0:03:59.440
<v Speaker 1>exceptional legal research and business development tools there as well.

0:03:59.720 --> 0:04:02.960
<v Speaker 1>Visit Bloomberg Law dot com and Bloomberg Bena dot com

0:04:03.240 --> 0:04:04.480
<v Speaker 1>for more information