3 ms·
This the first-to-invent rule going out with a bang. Under a change in the law in 2013, the UC Regents never would have had the chance to argue that they were e
by riemannzeta 5y ago
This the first-to-invent rule going out with a bang. Under a change in the law in 2013, the UC Regents never would have had the chance to argue that they were entitled to the claims here because Harvard filed first. Actually, they could still argue that Harvard stole (or "derived") the idea from them. But that doesn't seem to be the case here. Under the current law, this interference proceeding never would have happened.
- dsp 5y ago> Harvard filed first UC filed seven months earlier: https://genotopia.scienceblog.com/573/a-whig-history-of-crispr/ https://genotopia.scienceblog.com/573/a-whig-history-of-cris...
- riemannzeta 5y agoUC was first to file some other claims. In the claims that were at issue in this decision, Harvard was first to file. Actually the opinion does a good job explaining some of that. But Harvard is labeled the senior party in the opinion because they were the first to file this set of claims.