Further to recent IPBiz post on the CRISPR patent interference, the recent CAFC decision in Bamberg v. Dalvey offers some insights on patent interference practice.Of relevance to CRISPR, the junior party in the CAFC case (Dalvey, analogousto the position of Zhang in CRISPR) defeated the senior party in theCAFC case (Bamberg, analogous to the position of Doudna in CRISPR)based on lack of patentability under 35 USC 112 (which is apt to arisein the CRISPR case).Procedurally in the CAFC case, Bamberg, Peter Kummer, and Ilona Stiburek appealfrom the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s consolidatedinterference proceeding decision refusing to allow theclaims of four patent applications because the specificationfailed to meet the written description requirement of35 U.S.C. § 112. Relevant to the CRISPR matter, Bamberg was declared the senior party to the interference under 37 C.F.R. § 2.96,and in this case, the senior party LOST at PTAB and LOST at the CAFC. It is also…
↧