Massachusetts in February when assessed , Large
group invented CRISPR use in eukaryotic cells. After this decision, the CPU has moved the battlefield of the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. In a letter from July 25 to Federal Circuit, the UC group argues that PTAB "ignored important evidence" and "some mistakes".Right UC unquestionially showed first in 2012 that CRISPR could work the simplest organisms DNA, and soon after a patent on the genes of the cutting technique. State that the large group of the invention learned and applied to the eukaryotic cells CRISPR. The main legal issue is whether a wide patent application is a new patentable invention, or "obvious" in the sense that "everyone, the business", that is, all capacitadomic molecular biologists have a "success expectation" with the CRISPR system gene Eukaryotic cells.The UC Group argues that PTAB ignores important decisions on these general issues raised by the Supreme Court of the United States and the Federal Circuit. He reiterated his long-standing demand that the application of CRISPR eukaryotic cells was so obvious that six different laboratories at the same time and accuse the PTAB irrelevant "essentially as dismissed". "The patent applications CRISPR Sigma-Aldrich and Toolgen submitted before the patent application Broad, because he made statements that were" not new "or obviously reported in the light of the UC work.Jacob Sherkow, an intellectual property lawyer in New York's Law School in New York, who attentively followed every round in fierce struggle, the report said the UC group sometimes "overcomes this error over analysis PTAB". The decision PTAB was "complete" and rules their decisions are highly recalcitrant. "Although there were some interesting chestnuts in his memory, the CPU notes that the PTAB ignored virtually some important patents currently pending patent [large] was presented, I do not think that is enough to win the day [to] UC ", he said.
