CRISPR Patent Interference May 6 Conf Call Transcript

Filed on behalf of Senior Party
THE REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA,

UNIVERSITY OF VIENNA, AND EMMANUELLE CHARPENTIER
By:
Todd R. Walters, Esq.

Erin M. Dunston, Esq.
Travis W. Bliss, Ph.D., Esq.
BUCHANAN INGERSOLL & ROONEY PC
1737 King Street, Suite 500
Alexandria, Virginia 22314-2727
Telephone (703) 836-6620
Facsimile (703) 836-2021
todd.walters@bipc.com
erin.dunston@bipc.com
travis.bliss@bipc.com
By: Li-Hsien Rin-Laures, M.D., Esq.

Sandip H. Patel, Esq.
Greta Noland
MARSHALL GERSTEIN & BORUN LLP
6300 Willis Tower
233 South Wacker Drive
Chicago, Illinois 60606
Telephone (312) 474-6300
Facsimile (312) 474-0448
lrinlaures@marshallip.com
spatel@marshallip.com
gnoland@marshallip.com
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE

____________________
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________________
THE BROAD INSTITUTE, INC., MASSACHUSETTS INSTITUTE OF
TECHNOLOGY, and PRESIDENT AND FELLOWS OF HARVARD COLLEGE
Patents 8,697,359; 8,771,945; 8,795,965; 8,865,406; 8,871,445; 8,889,356;
8,895,308; 8,906,616; 8,932,814; 8,945,839; 8,993,233; 8,999,641; and Application 14/704,551,
Junior Party,
v.
THE REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, UNIVERSITY
OF VIENNA, AND EMMANUELLE CHARPENTIER,
Application 13/842,859,
Senior Party.
____________________
Patent Interference 106,048 (DK)
____________________
SUBMISSION OF TRANSCRIPT
Interference No. 106,048

1
2
Senior Party submits herewith a copy of the transcript of the telephone conference held
on May 6, 2016 with an errata sheet to correct typographical errors.
Respectfully submitted,
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
Date: May 9, 2016
By: /Todd R. Walters/

Registration No. 34,040
Alexandria, VA 22314
Telephone (703) 836-6620
Facsimile (703) 836-2021
Counsel for UC and Vienna
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Date: May 9, 2016
By: /Li-Hsien Rin-Laures/

Li-Hsien Rin-Laures, M.D., Esq.
MARSHALL GERSTEIN & BORUN LLP
6300 Willis Tower
Telephone (312) 474-6300
Facsimile (312) 474-0448
Counsel for EC

CERTIFICATE OF FILING AND SERVICE
I hereby certify that on this 9th day of May, 2016, the foregoing SUBMISSION OF
TRANSCRIPT is being filed, via the Interference Web Portal, by 5:00 PM Eastern Time.
Pursuant to agreement by the parties, service copies are being sent, via electronic mail by 8:00
PM Eastern Time today, to Junior Partys counsel as follows:
Steven R. Trybus, Esq.
Harry J. Roper, Esq.
JENNER & BLOCK LLP
353 North Clark Street
(312) 222-9350
strybus@jenner.com
hroper@jenner.com
Date: May 9, 2016
/Todd R. Walters/
Alexandria, VA 22314
Telephone (703) 836-6620
Facsimile (703) 836-2021
Counsel for UC and Vienna
Transcript of Conference Call

Date: May 6, 2016
Case: The Broad Institute, Inc. -v- The Regents of the University of
California (PTAB)
Planet Depos, LLC

Phone: 888-433-3767
Fax: 888-503-3767
Email: transcripts@planetdepos.com
Internet: www.planetdepos.com
Worldwide Court Reporting | Interpretation | Trial Services
1
1
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
________________________
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
________________________
THE BROAD INSTITUTE, INC., MASSACHUSETTS INSTITUTE OF

TECHNOLOGY, and PRESIDENT AND FELLOWS OF HARVARD COLLEGE
Patents 8,697,359; 8,771,945; 8,795,965; 8,865,406;

8,871,445; 8,889,356; 8,895,308; 8,906,616; 8,932,814;
8,945,839; 8,993,233; 8,999,641; and Application

14/704,551,
8
9
Junior Party,
v.
10
11
THE REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, UNIVERSITY

OF VIENNA, AND EMMANUELLE CHARPENTIER,
12
13
Application 13/842,859,
Senior Party.
14
________________________
15
Patent Interference 106,048 (DK)
16
________________________
17
18
PHONE CONFERENCE
19
May 6, 2016
20
Commencing at 9:33 a.m.
21
22
REPORTED BY:
CAITLIN J. ALBRECHT
Conference Call
Conducted on May 6, 2016
2
Phone conference between the Honorable
1
2
Deborah Katz and the Honorable Richard Schafer and
counsel for the Junior Party and counsel for the Senior
Party regarding Patent Interference 106,048, on May 6,
2016, commencing at 9:33 a.m., before Caitlin J.
Albrecht, Notary Public of and for the State of
Minnesota.
8
**********
APPEARANCES
10
11
12
On Behalf of the Junior Party:
13
14
Steven R. Trybus, Esq.
15
strybus@jenner.com
16
Paul D. Margolis, Esq.
17
pmargolis@jenner.com
18
JENNER & BLOCK LLP
19
353 North Clark Street
20
21
312-222-9350
22
(APPEARANCES continued on next page)
PLANET DEPOS
888.433.3767 | WWW.PLANETDEPOS.COM
Conference Call
3
1
APPEARANCES (Continued)
2
3
On Behalf of the Senior Party:
4
5
Travis W. Bliss, Ph.D.
Erin M. Dunston, Esq.
10
erin.dunston@bipc.com
11
12
1737 King Street
13
Suite 500
14
Alexandria, Virginia 22314
15
703-836-6620
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
(APPEARANCES continued on next page)
PLANET DEPOS
Conference Call
4
1
APPEARANCES (Continued)
2
3
Li-Hsien (Lily) Rin-Laures, M.D.
Sandip H. Patel, Esq.
spatel@marshallip.com
MARSHALL GERSTEIN AND BORUN LLP
6300 Willis Tower
10
11
312-474-6300
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
NOTE:
The original transcript will be filed
20
with Buchanan Ingersoll & Rooney PC, pursuant to the
21
applicable Rules of Civil Procedure.
22
PLANET DEPOS
Conference Call
5
(Proceedings commenced at 9:33 a.m.)
JUDGE KATZ:
All right.
I think the
parties, they look like -- first of all, actually I
have to apologize that this conference call was
scheduled so late.
yesterday, so my apologies for that.
I wasn't aware of it until
I think the -- it seems like the parties
7
8
requested the call, and the first thing that we wanted
to talk about was page limit.
So who would like to
10
discuss that?
Is that -- Mr. Walters and Mr. Trybus,
11
have you two discussed page limits with each other?

MR. TRYBUS:
12
Yes, Your Honor.
13
Steve Trybus.
14
to that.
15
might be a little bit more extended.
16
This is
And we have had a discussion with regard
If I might, some of the discussion on that
I wanted to raise one of the other issues that
17
we referenced in the e-mail first, because I think it
18
can be dealt with rather quickly, and then we can move
19
on to the page limit issue.
20
the question with regard to exhibits.
21
discussed this with counsel for senior party, and I
22
guess there are two or three separate pieces to that.
And that is specifically

And I've
PLANET DEPOS
Conference Call
6
1
First of all, we wondered whether Your Honors
would contemplate waiving the requirement of Standing
Order 154.2.1, that the exhibits have consecutive
exhibit numbers.
the -- that rule applies here in the interference, as I
know it.
it's more often on -- consecutive numbers are not
applied.
I know that it is common to -- over
The AAA trial side of the board proceedings,
And the request was really for the ability,
10
then, for the parties to sort of group their exhibits,
11
if you will, putting, perhaps, patents together in one
12
area, declarations in another area, and giving them
13
sort of unique numbers such that, you know, the 2000
14
series for us, perhaps, would be patents, and we would
15
do declarations in 2100, and articles as -- starting
16
with 2200.
17
If that is contrary to the rules -- and we can
18
certainly, you know, do all our exhibits consecutive
19
numbering, but we thought it might be helpful both to
20
the parties and the Board to have nonconsecutive
21
numbering where we have that sort of more staged
22
presentation of the exhibit numbers.
PLANET DEPOS
Conference Call
7
JUDGE KATZ:
1
2
discussed that?
Mr. Walters, you
That's fine with you?
MR. WALTERS:
Okay.
Yeah, we don't have any
objection to skipping some numbers in the exhibit
numbering.
JUDGE KATZ:
Okay.
I mean, we would appreciate
anything that makes the record easier to understand and
more organized.
having to have consecutive numbering, we'd waive that.
10
11
We appreciate it.
MR. TRYBUS:
Okay.
So in that sense,
Thank you, Your Honor.
The next piece for that goes a bit along with
12
that, and I guess I should say I don't think
13
necessarily the -- Your Honors need to know, but we
14
have agreed between ourselves with regard to a process
15
for service that comports with the rules of the Board.
16
We were also -- wanted to raise -- and
17
Mr. Walters had no objection to this, although this
18
was, I will say, my idea -- the question of whether it
19
might be possible in this interference.
20
because of the number of patents and -- 12 patents and
21
one application on our side, the -- and the fact that
22
all of those are rather voluminous themselves, the
We have,
PLANET DEPOS
Conference Call
8
1
number of exhibits are perhaps larger than is usual in
these cases, and there are a number of these exhibits
that are also larger than usual.
So we wanted to ask the question of whether it
would be possible that in -- when we file the motions,
that we use the portal to file the, on our side four
motions, on Mr. Walters' side, his two motions.
the accompanying materials, exhibits, declarations, et
cetera, be provided -- rather than filing via the
And
10
portal, be provided on either a USB drive or a disc,
11
whatever would be appropriate, rather than having the
12
time to -- needing to take the time and the problems
13
that occur sometimes with filing via the portal the
14
large exhibits.
I understand that that, you know, may or may
15
16
not comport with the way that the Board works.
17
offer that up as something that would perhaps make it
18
easier to have everything in one place.
19
isn't what the Board would prefer, we're perfectly
20
willing to go ahead and file everything via the portal
21
as well.
22
JUDGE KATZ:
Okay.
But I
But if that
I think it would be
PLANET DEPOS
Conference Call
9
1
fine.
If it does make it easier, again, I think that
would be fine.
eventually everything does have to be on the portal,
and if some of the exhibits are over 25 megabytes, that
there may be trouble getting them on anyway.
may be something that the administrative staff has to
work with you.

MR. TRYBUS:
8
9
The only concern I would have is that
Okay.
So that
And so, Your Honor, if
I understand that, we'll take that proposal and then
10
we'll work with the administrative staff and make sure
11
everything gets up on the portal eventually, including
12
those exhibits.
13
that will be over 25 megabytes.
And there will be some, I'm certain,
JUDGE KATZ:
14
Yeah, that would be -- that
15
would be good if you can, you know, put them up or
16
something.
17
about that than we do.
But if you work with them, they know more
18
MR. TRYBUS:
Okay, thank you very much.
19
JUDGE KATZ:
Okay.
20
MR. TRYBUS:
I'm then prepared to move on
21
to page limits.
Todd, is that appropriate from your
22
point of view at this point?
PLANET DEPOS
Conference Call
10
1
MR. WALTERS:
MR. TRYBUS:
Yes, absolutely.
Okay.
So, Your Honors, for
the party Broad, my request for the extra page limits
would be as follows, and we have discussed these, also,
with the other side:
was authorized for benefit, we believe we need 10 extra
pages for a total of 35 pages on that motion.
believe that we will be able to address the benefit
issues within that.
With regard to the Motion 3 that
We
We have worked hard to try to
10
reduce as much as possible the extraneous materials
11
with regard to that, and believe that we can fit within
12
that for Motion 3 on benefits.
13
For our Motions 4, with -- on written
14
description and Motion 5 with regard to designating
15
materials as not corresponding to Count 1, we're
16
working hard to try to fit those within 25 pages, but
17
at the moment, it doesn't look like we're quite there.
18
We would ask just for three or four extra pages
19
on those motions for -- and I guess I would say that --
20
I might as well say 4 to get to 29 pages on each of
21
those Motions 4 and 5.
22
With regard to Motion 2, no
PLANET DEPOS
Conference Call
11
1
interference-in-fact, generally we believe, again, that
we will just need a few extra pages, like four extra
pages, to be able to address no interference-in-fact.

With -- respectfully asking the Board for
4
5
clarification, really, on one issue with regard to
that, and that issue is as follows:
both by rule and by practice with regard to the no
interference-in-fact motions, oftentimes there are
submitted charts that might or might not count in page
I understand that
10
limit, but also the charts themselves, charting the
11
claims of the one party against the claims of the other
12
party.
13
As Your Honors know, we have on our side almost
14
400 claims in play, and on the other side, 60 claims in
15
play.
16
our list of motions, we're really, in the no
17
interference-in-fact, raising just one limitation,
18
which is that all of the claims on our side are limited
19
to -- have a eukaryotic limitation in them, and none of
20
the claims on the other side does.
21
even think that it's contested, but that difference
22
between the claims exists.
And as Your Honors may or may not remember from
I don't actually
So I know there will be a
PLANET DEPOS
Conference Call
12
1
substantive resistance to the result of whether the --
what that claim difference means.
But given the number of claims and given that
we're only raising one difference on our no
interference-in-fact motion, as we started to put the
claim structure together, and as Your Honors may have
seen when we just filed our plea claims, just listing
our claims takes 72 pages.
So rather than go through hundreds, we wanted
10
to request a bit of -- we thought, I guess, that it
11
would be appropriate in this case to really just show
12
our argument affects what this difference is, show the
13
difference with a representative claim.
14
think that there were really needed, for the other side
15
or for the Board, listing of claim after claim after
16
claim where the only thing that's going to be
17
highlighted as a difference is the terminology,
18
eukaryotic.
19
But we didn't
So if we do not have to file those charts or if
20
those charts -- or Your Honors want the charts filed
21
but they don't count against the page limit, we could
22
do it in 28 pages with an extension of three or 29 with
PLANET DEPOS
Conference Call
13
1
an extension of four.
hundred pages for those listings.

JUDGE KATZ:
3
4
Otherwise, we need several
Okay.
That makes sense.
Mr. Walters, do you have anything to say about that?

MR. WALTERS:
We do not have any objection
to the request of the additional pages for any of the
motions that junior party is requesting.
8
9
As to the last issue, we don't want to agree

that, substantively, that they will have addressed
10
everything.
But in principle, what Mr. Trybus is
11
saying seems agreeable to the senior party.

JUDGE KATZ:
12
Okay.
All right.
I think,
13
then, for just procedural reasons, it stays -- so I
14
guess you could ask for 35 pages for those benefit
15
motions, Mr. Trybus; is that right?
16
MR. TRYBUS:
Correct, Your Honor.
17
JUDGE KATZ:
Okay.
18
reasonable.
And that seems
We can -- I'll put that in an order.
19
And then just to round things off, it looks
20
like 30 page for the no interference-in-fact and 30
21
pages for the description?
22
MR. TRYBUS:
Yes.
And also for Motion 5,
PLANET DEPOS
Conference Call
14
1
the de-designation.
JUDGE KATZ:
2
3
4
Right.
Okay.
That makes
sense.
And I think does -- so any requirement -- I
think the claim charts that you can provide that will
be helpful are good, and if they become excessive and
are not helpful, then you don't need to provide them.
And they also don't count towards the page limit.
9
10
11
MR. TRYBUS:
All right.
Thank you very
much, Your Honor.

JUDGE KATZ:
Okay.
All right.
Then I
12
think there was one last issue, procedural issue about
13
the motion to substitute a count from the senior party.
14
MR. WALTERS:
Actually, Your Honor, senior
15
party also wants to talk about page limits for its two
16
motions, and a procedural issue with regard to its
17
motion to substitute a count.
18
JUDGE KATZ:
19
MR. WALTERS:
Okay.
So I'll start with senior
20
party's benefit motion.
And, Your Honor, in senior
21
party's benefit motion, according to the order
22
authorizing motion, senior party was authorized to
PLANET DEPOS
Conference Call
15
1
address benefit with respect to the current count,
Count 1, as well as the counts that it would be
proposing in the motion to substitute a count.
So we are addressing in that motion three
counts and three provisional applications.
And as a
result of that, the number of pages that senior party
is requesting is a bit more than what is being
requested by the junior party, who's addressing one
count and four provisional applications.
Currently, we
10
have whittled down the argument section of the motion
11
to 50 pages, and that does not include our statements
12
of facts.
13
simple statements with a citation, double-spaced, in
14
earlier drafts, the statement of facts was as long as
15
the argument.
16
that motion because we're dealing with three counts and
17
three provisional applications.
18
19
20
Viewing the statement of facts as providing
So we are asking for a hundred pages for
JUDGE KATZ:
Okay.
You've worked to get
the argument section down to -MR. WALTERS:
Yeah, we've really
21
streamlined, particularly where there were common
22
disclosures in the respective applications down, but if
PLANET DEPOS
Conference Call
16
1
you go element by element of each count and show where
it's described in the respective applications, it just
-- it eats up pages very quickly.

JUDGE KATZ:
I think the application that
you're asking for benefits, these are not the same
specification.
continuations, but they're not -- they are
continuation-in-part.
MR. WALTERS:
9
10
JUDGE KATZ:
15
They are all provisional
So you're arguing for each
one of the provisional applications?

MR. WALTERS:
13
14
I think there are
applications with different disclosures, Your Honor.
11
12
I can't remember.
Correct.
Three of four
provisionals.
JUDGE KATZ:
Okay.
All right.
And you
16
think that the statement of material facts will be
17
equal to the length of the argument?
18
MR. WALTERS:
Yeah.
The problem is if you
19
go element by element for each of the provisional
20
applications, to put the fact in in a simple sentence,
21
it just eats up pages very quickly.
22
JUDGE KATZ:
Okay.
All right.
I think
PLANET DEPOS
Conference Call
17
1
we'll take that under advisement.
put that out in an order.

All right.
3
4
All right?
And I'll
Mr. Trybus, did you have any
comment?
MR. TRYBUS:
Your Honor, we believe that,
you know, it's a rather large number of pages, but we
leave it to Your Honors to determine whether that's
reasonable or not.
comment, I just --- I think it's more a substantive
I think to the extent that I have a
10
issue that we may ultimately differ with senior party
11
with regard to the fact, of course, that the order
12
authorizing motions did allow for two counts, if both
13
were necessary.
14
that that's the case, so it may be that we think that
15
they should not have been proposing two additional
16
counts.
17
I'm not sure that we're going to agree
But it is more, I think, a substantive issue.

We leave it to your Your Honors to determine
18
the propriety of the number of pages, given
19
Mr. Walters' statements.
20
JUDGE KATZ:
Okay.
All right,
21
Mr. Walters, I think you should talk about this
22
procedural issue that you had about the substituting a
PLANET DEPOS
Conference Call
18
1
count.
MR. WALTERS:
Well, and that goes hand in
hand with page limits on the motion to substitute the
count.
a motion to substitute the count says that you need to
address whether you're entitled to benefit with respect
to the count that you're proposing.
proposing two counts.
In the standing order, the section dealing with
Here we are
We are assuming, but want to confirm with you,
10
Your Honor, that since we're permitted to address the
11
benefit issue in the benefit motion, that we do not
12
have to separately address the benefit issue for the
13
counts that we're proposing being substituted for the
14
current count.
JUDGE KATZ:
15
16
Okay.
And those are two
separately tangible counts; is that right?
17
MR. WALTERS:
18
JUDGE KATZ:
Correct.
Okay.
All right.
And that
19
makes sense.
And that clarifies a bit more the request
20
of the page limits, then.
21
more pages in the benefit motion so that you wouldn't
22
have to repeat everything in the motion to substitute
It's for -- that you want
PLANET DEPOS
Conference Call
19
1
the count?
MR. WALTERS:
Correct, Your Honor, that
addresses that.
But we still want to talk about page
limits for the motion to substitute the count.
JUDGE KATZ:
MR. WALTERS:
Okay, go ahead.
So with regard to the motion
to substitute the count, we have to propose in that
motion the counts.
proposing is a count that is generic as to environment
One of the counts that we are
10
and generic as to the guide RNA, meaning it covers both
11
the dual guide and the single guide embodiments.
12
we do not have a claim in our application in the
13
interference that would appropriately, in our mind, be
14
designated to correspond to that claim.
15
that count.
I'm sorry, to
So we are going to be proposing a claim.
16
Yet
We
17
also have to do a proffer of truths to explain why a
18
broader count is appropriate, which we are going to do.
19
We are also going to address the patentability of the
20
counts and the claim that we are offering for the
21
counts and the claim.
22
arb.
We're going to address the prior
We're also going to, for the claim, address 112
PLANET DEPOS
Conference Call
20
1
issues.
We're also going to address 135(b).
We also have, for this motion, to address why
the existing count is not appropriate, and we have to
address claim correspondence of the respective parties'
claims that are in the interference.
streamlining as much as we could in this, and not even
including the benefit issues addressing all of the
prior -- or all of the proffer -- all of these things I
just mentioned, we are at 70 pages of argument.
Again, currently
And we
10
think that we could address the statements of fact in
11
about 50 pages.
12
about 120 pages for that motion.
13
So we would be asking for a total of
JUDGE KATZ:
Okay.
I'm not sure, were you
14
-- was there an authorization for motions to add a
15
claim or motion to address 135, or?
16
MR. WALTERS:
Well, that is all part of
17
the requirements of a motion to substitute a count,
18
Your Honor, in the standing order.
19
addressing everything that we would need to address.
20
JUDGE SCHAFER:
So we're just
Mr. Walters, why would we
21
even consider putting in a claim that you didn't --
22
that was never put before the examiner?
PLANET DEPOS
Conference Call
21
MR. WALTERS:
Well, Your Honor, we are
late in -- I'm sorry, not late.
We are not as far
along in prosecution as Broad in their prosecution, and
the claims that we had allowed at the time that the
interference was requested were our single guide
claims.
interference, suggested an interference that was
limited to the commonly patentable subject matter found
by the patent office at that time.
We originally, in the request for
10
However, the interference was declared in a way
11
that we did not expect, because it's limited to a count
12
that is -- that has a eukaryote environment limitation.
13
If it was believed that that limitation made the claims
14
separately patentable, then there should have been no
15
interference declared.
16
claim separately patentable, then the count should not
17
be limited to that environment.
18
But if it does not make the
We think it's -- either this interference
19
should be limited to the common patentable subject
20
matter of the parties, but not put senior party at a
21
disadvantage by not allowing it to rely on its earliest
22
truths just because of the claims that it got allowed
PLANET DEPOS
Conference Call
22
1
2
during prosecution.
JUDGE SCHAFER:
Well, that seems to have
been in your control during the prosecution.
claims that you have were the claims that you asked the
examiner to look at, and that's what we have before us.
MR. WALTERS:
The
We certainly asked the
examiner to examine the single guide claims, Your
Honor, and those claims were found patentable.
point in time did we ever indicate to the examiner that
10
those were the only claims that we would request
11
examination on.
12
intended to pursue other claims.
13
restriction requirement during prosecution that
14
indicated that the single guide invention was
15
separately patentable.
16
17
18
At no
In fact, the examiner knew that we
JUDGE KATZ:
We even received a
So you have other
applications that you could file?

MR. WALTERS:
Yeah.
In fact, we have a
19
parallel set of claims that are directed to the single
20
guide -- I'm sorry.
21
environment and a generic RNA, meaning it covers both
22
the dual guide and the single guide RNA.
That are directed to a generic
It is in our
PLANET DEPOS
Conference Call
23
1
Application 14/685,502.
claims to the claims in the interference, the involved
claims, we believe it would be appropriate to bring
that application into the interference as part of the
motion to substitute the count, directed to the more
generic count that we're proposing in our motion to
substitute the count.
JUDGE KATZ:
MR. WALTERS:
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
And that parallel set of
Okay.
And we would request that we
be able to do that.
JUDGE KATZ:
Well, if you -- have you
requested a motion for all this?

MR. WALTERS:
We would like to do it as
part of the motion to substitute the count, Your Honor.

JUDGE KATZ:
Well, then there hasn't been
any authorization for a motion.

MR. WALTERS:
And that's what we're asking
for right now.

JUDGE KATZ:
Oh, well, that -- you haven't
20
provided -- that's not what the conference call was
21
about, was -- the motion period's already going.
22
MR. WALTERS:
We understand that, Your
PLANET DEPOS
Conference Call
24
1
Honor, and -- but no motions have yet been filed.
JUDGE KATZ:
Okay.
MR. WALTERS:
And in the standing order,
it indicates that you can propose a claim that would
correspond to a count.
that claim should come from the 14/685,502 application
because the claims in that case are generally parallel
to the more generic count that we're proposing in our
motion to substitute the count.
10
11
12
In here, we're suggesting that
JUDGE KATZ:
Okay.
Mr. Trybus, do you
want to comment?
MR. TRYBUS:
Yes, Your Honor.
So we
13
believe that this is an improper attempt by the senior
14
party to get around the rules here.
15
this claim was briefly set forth with regard to the
16
Motion 5 that they had requested and requested
17
reconsideration on, and have been told that they have
18
not raised this issue.
19
The idea of adding
In addition, we have had conversations with
20
senior party where we have asked for access to the
21
claims he's talking about.
22
been -- to the extent this was going to be proposed,
We believe they should have
PLANET DEPOS
Conference Call
25
1
that it needed to be proposed in the list of motions.
And that at that time we should have been given access
to the 14/685,502 claims.
are not available publicly.
-- with regard to there.
We do not have those.
They
So we have no idea what is
We think these are issues that should have been
raised long ago, and that they have -- they now are
trying to improperly raise these issues.
is part and parcel of an idea that was set forth to
I think this
10
some degree, that they were going to try to move with
11
regard to one or both of these counts.
12
of their current claims de-designated, and they
13
requested these claims to be in this interference.
14
they believe now that these claims and those claims do
15
not interfere, then I think perhaps the resolution
16
should be that they do not oppose our no
17
interference-in-fact motion and have this interference
18
be decided that way.
19
additional claims can be addressed in something else.
20
They have all
If
And additional applications with
I think it's an improper attempt for the senior
21
party to, at this late date, bring things in that are
22
not properly part of what they asked for and what Your
PLANET DEPOS
Conference Call
26
1
Honors authorized with regard to these motions, and we
strenuously object to this idea of bringing in
additional claims.
going to ask for it to start de-designating some of
their claims from the count which they asked for -- and
it was in their Motion 5, and it was a motion that was
not authorized.
MR. WALTERS:
8
9
And to the extent that they're also
Your Honor, may I respond to
that?
JUDGE KATZ:
10
Yeah, I have one question,
11
Mr. Walters.
12
motion yet, but do you plan to oppose on the motion for
13
no inter fact [phonetic] by junior party?

MR. WALTERS:
14
15
motion?
18
then.
Do we plan to oppose that
Yes, Your Honor.

JUDGE KATZ:
16
17
Do you -- I know you haven't seen a
Okay.
All right.
Go ahead,
What were you going to -MR. WALTERS:
I just want to point out in
19
senior party's list of proposed motions on page 11,
20
where we had requested contingently to file a motion to
21
substitute Count 1 with proposed Count 3 at that time,
22
at the end of that request, the end of the paragraph,
PLANET DEPOS
Conference Call
27
1
we stated that senior party intends to request the
addition of a claim that would correspond to proposed
Count 3.
motions list.
We specifically contemplated that in our
As to providing junior party with a copy of the
5
6
claims of our Application 14/685,502, we did offer to
provide opposing counsel a copy of those claims, but it
was for the limited purpose of them deciding whether
they would oppose our request to pull those claims into
10
this interference.
They declined to accept the claims
11
on that condition, and we didn't want them to use the
12
claims for other purposes at this point in time.
13
we're still happy to provide those claims to opposing
14
counsel, and they certainly would get the claims as
15
part of our motion to substitute the count.

So we did raise it in our motions list, and we
16
17
did offer the claims up.
18
JUDGE KATZ:
Okay.
And what is the status
19
of the application, this 502 application that you
20
offered?
21
22
But
MR. WALTERS:
It is waiting for
examination from the examiner.
I don't believe that
PLANET DEPOS
Conference Call
28
1
the examiner has backed it on those claims.
JUDGE KATZ:
issues have been raised.
under -- and we will put out an order.
Okay.
I think some
I think we should take them
So is that -- is that everything that everybody
5
6
Okay.
wants to discuss?
MR. WALTERS:
Your Honor, just one real
quick question for senior party.
against a deadline for filing motions, and I wanted to
10
get a sense of when you thought you might get an order
11
out so we had guidance on how we could finalize our
12
motions.
JUDGE KATZ:
13
14
We, of course, are up
We will try to do that as
quickly as possible.
15
MR. WALTERS:
Okay.
16
JUDGE KATZ:
All right?
17
MR. TRYBUS:
Thank you, Your Honor.
18
is Steve Trybus on behalf of junior party.
19
nothing else.
20
21
22
This
We have
JUDGE KATZ:
Okay.
Thank you, everybody.
MR. TRYBUS:
Thank you very much.
That's --
PLANET DEPOS
Conference Call
29
1
JUDGE KATZ:
(Discussion held off the record.)
(Proceedings were concluded at 10:05 a.m.
-- the record.
on Friday, May 6, 2016.)
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
PLANET DEPOS
Conference Call
30
REPORTER'S CERTIFICATE
1
2
3
I, Caitlin J. Albrecht, Notary Public of and
4
5
for the State of Minnesota, do hereby certify that the
foregoing pages of typewritten material constitutes an
accurate verbatim stenographic record taken by me of
the telephone conference aforementioned on the 6th day
of May, 2016, at the times and place specified.
10
11
12
DATED:
May 6, 2016.
13
14
15
_________________________________
16
Caitlin J. Albrecht
17
18
19
20
21
22
PLANET DEPOS
Conference Call
31
A
AAA
6:6
ability
6:9
able
10:8 11:3 23:10
about
5:9 9:17 13:4 14:12,15
17:21,22 19:3 20:11
20:12 23:21 24:21
absolutely
10:1
accept
27:10
access
24:20 25:2
accompanying
8:8
according
14:21
accurate
30:7
actually
5:3 11:20 14:14
add
20:14
adding
24:14
addition
24:19 27:2
additional
13:6 17:15 25:18,19
26:3
address
10:8 11:3 15:1 18:6,10
18:12 19:19,21,22
20:1,2,4,10,15,19
addressed
13:9 25:19
addresses
19:3
addressing
15:4,8 20:7,19
administrative
9:6,10
advisement
17:1
affects
12:12
aforementioned
30:8
after
12:15,15
again
9:1 11:1 20:5
against
11:11 12:21 28:9
ago
25:7
agree
13:8 17:13
agreeable
13:11
agreed
7:14
ahead
8:20 19:5 26:16
Albrecht
1:22 2:6 30:4,16
Alexandria
3:14
all
5:2,3 6:1,18 7:22 11:18
13:12 14:9,11 16:9,15
16:22 17:1,3,20 18:18
20:7,8,8,16 23:12
25:11 26:16 28:16
allow
17:12
allowed
21:4,22
allowing
21:21
almost
11:13
along
7:11 21:3
already
23:21
also
7:16 8:3 10:4 11:10
13:22 14:8,15 19:17
19:19,22 20:1,2 26:3

although
7:17
another
6:12
any
7:3 13:5,6 14:4 17:3
23:16
anything
7:7 13:4
anyway
9:5
apologies
5:6
apologize
5:4
APPEAL
1:3
APPEARANCES
2:10,22 3:1,22 4:1
applicable
4:21
application
1:7,12 7:21 16:4 19:12
23:1,4 24:6 27:6,19
27:19
applications
15:5,9,17,22 16:2,10
16:12,20 22:17 25:18
applied
6:8
applies
6:5
appreciate
7:6,8
appropriate
8:11 9:21 12:11 19:18
20:3 23:3
appropriately
19:13
arb
19:22
area
6:12,12
arguing
16:11
argument
PLANET DEPOS
12:12 15:10,15,19
16:17 20:9
around
24:14
articles
6:15
asked
22:4,6 24:20 25:22
26:5
asking
11:4 15:15 16:5 20:11
23:17
assuming
18:9
attempt
24:13 25:20
authorization
20:14 23:16
authorized
10:6 14:22 26:1,7
authorizing
14:22 17:12
available
25:4
aware
5:5
a.m
1:20 2:5 5:1 29:3
B
backed
28:1
because
5:17 7:20 15:16 21:11
21:22 24:7
become
14:6
been
17:15 21:14 22:3 23:15
24:1,17,22 25:2,6
28:3
before
1:3 2:5 20:22 22:5
behalf
2:12 3:3 28:18
being
15:7 18:13
Conference Call
32
believe
10:6,8,11 11:1 17:5
23:3 24:13,21 25:14
27:22
believed
21:13
benefit
10:6,8 13:14 14:20,21
15:1 18:6,11,11,12,21
20:7
benefits
10:12 16:5
between
2:1 7:14 11:22
bit
5:15 7:11 12:10 15:7
18:19
Bliss
3:7
BLOCK
2:18
board
1:3 6:6,20 7:15 8:16,19
11:4 12:15
BORUN
4:7
both
6:19 11:7 17:12 19:10
22:21 25:11
briefly
24:15
bring
23:3 25:21
bringing
26:2
Broad
1:5 10:3 21:3
broader
19:18
Buchanan
3:11 4:20
C
Caitlin
1:22 2:5 30:4,16
CALIFORNIA
1:11
call
5:4,8 23:20
case
12:11 17:14 24:7
cases
8:2
certain
9:12
certainly
6:18 22:6 27:14
CERTIFICATE
30:1
certify
30:5
cetera
8:9
CHARPENTIER
1:11
charting
11:10
charts
11:9,10 12:19,20,20
14:5
Chicago
2:20 4:10
citation
15:13
Civil
4:21
claim
12:2,6,13,15,15,16
14:5 19:12,14,16,20
19:21,22 20:4,15,21
21:16 24:4,6,15 27:2
claims
11:11,11,14,14,18,20
11:22 12:3,7,8 20:5
21:4,6,13,22 22:4,4,7
22:8,10,12,19 23:2,2
23:3 24:7,21 25:3,12
25:13,14,14,19 26:3,5
27:6,7,9,10,12,13,14
27:17 28:1
clarification
11:5
clarifies
18:19
Clark
2:19
COLLEGE
1:5
come
24:6
commenced
5:1
commencing
1:20 2:5
comment
17:4,9 24:11
common
6:4 15:21 21:19
commonly
21:8
comport
8:16
comports
7:15
concern
9:2
concluded
29:3
condition
27:11
conference
1:18 2:1 5:4 23:20 30:8
confirm
18:9
consecutive
6:3,7,18 7:9
consider
20:21
constitutes
30:6
contemplate
6:2
contemplated
27:3
contested
11:21
contingently
26:20
continuations
16:7
continuation-in-part
PLANET DEPOS
16:8
continued
2:22 3:1,22 4:1
contrary
6:17
control
22:3
conversations
24:19
copy
27:5,7
Correct
13:16 16:13 18:17 19:2
correspond
19:14 24:5 27:2
correspondence
20:4
corresponding
10:15
could
12:21 13:14 20:6,10
22:17 28:11
counsel
2:3,3 5:21 27:7,14
count
10:15 11:9 12:21 14:8
14:13,17 15:1,2,3,9
16:1 18:1,4,5,7,14
19:1,4,7,9,15,18 20:3
20:17 21:11,16 23:5,6
23:7,14 24:5,8,9 26:5
26:21,21 27:3,15
counts
15:2,5,16 17:12,16
18:8,13,16 19:8,8,20
19:21 25:11
course
17:11 28:8
covers
19:10 22:21
current
15:1 18:14 25:12
currently
15:9 20:5
D
D
Conference Call
33
2:16
date
25:21
DATED
30:12
day
30:8
deadline
28:9
dealing
15:16 18:4
dealt
5:18
Deborah
2:2
decided
25:18
deciding
27:8
declarations
6:12,15 8:8
declared
21:10,15
declined
27:10
degree
25:10
described
16:2
description
10:14 13:21
designated
19:14
designating
10:14
determine
17:7,17
de-designated
25:12
de-designating
26:4
de-designation
14:1
differ
17:10
difference
11:21 12:2,4,12,13,17
different
16:10
directed
22:19,20 23:5
disadvantage
21:21
disc
8:10
disclosures
15:22 16:10
discuss
5:10 28:6
discussed
5:11,21 7:2 10:4
discussion
5:13,14 29:2
DK
1:15
double-spaced
15:13
down
15:10,19,22
drafts
15:14
drive
4:8 8:10
dual
19:11 22:22
Dunston
3:9
during
22:1,3,13
E
earlier
15:14
earliest
21:21
easier
7:7 8:18 9:1
eats
16:3,21
either
8:10 21:18
element
16:1,1,19,19
else
25:19 28:19
embodiments
19:11
EMMANUELLE
1:11
entitled
18:6
environment
19:9 21:12,17 22:21
equal
16:17
Erin
3:9
erin.dunston@bipc....
3:10
Esq
2:14,16 3:5,9 4:5
et
8:8
eukaryote
21:12
eukaryotic
11:19 12:18
even
11:21 20:6,21 22:12
eventually
9:3,11
ever
22:9
everybody
28:5,20
everything
8:18,20 9:3,11 13:10
18:22 20:19 28:5
examination
22:11 27:22
examine
22:7
examiner
20:22 22:5,7,9,11
27:22 28:1
excessive
14:6
exhibit
6:4,22 7:4
exhibits
5:20 6:3,10,18 8:1,2,8
PLANET DEPOS
8:14 9:4,12
existing
20:3
exists
11:22
expect
21:11
explain
19:17
extended
5:15
extension
12:22 13:1
extent
17:8 24:22 26:3
extra
10:3,6,18 11:2,2
extraneous
10:10
e-mail
5:17
F
fact
7:21 16:20 17:11 20:10
22:11,18 26:13
facts
15:12,12,14 16:16
far
21:2
FELLOWS
1:5
few
11:2
file
8:5,6,20 12:19 22:17
26:20
filed
4:19 12:7,20 24:1
filing
8:9,13 28:9
finalize
28:11
fine
7:2 9:1,2
first
5:3,8,17 6:1
Conference Call
34
fit
10:11,16
follows
10:4 11:6
foregoing
30:6
forth
24:15 25:9
found
21:8 22:8
four
8:6 10:18 11:2 13:1
15:9 16:13
Friday
29:4
G
generally
11:1 24:7
generic
19:9,10 22:20,21 23:6
24:8
GERSTEIN
4:7
getting
9:5
given
12:3,3 17:18 25:2
giving
6:12
go
8:20 12:9 16:1,19 19:5
26:16
goes
7:11 18:2
going
12:16 17:13 19:16,18
19:19,21,22 20:1
23:21 24:22 25:10
26:4,17
good
9:15 14:6
group
6:10
guess
5:22 7:12 10:19 12:10
13:14
Illinois
2:20 4:10
improper
24:13 25:20
improperly
25:8
H
INC
H
1:5
4:5
include
hand
15:11
18:2,3
including
happy
9:11 20:7
27:13
indicate
hard
22:9
10:9,16
indicated
HARVARD
22:14
1:5
indicates
held
24:4
29:2
Ingersoll
helpful
3:11 4:20
6:19 14:6,7
INSTITUTE
here
1:5,5
6:5 18:7 24:5,14
intended
hereby
22:12
30:5
intends
highlighted
27:1
12:17
inter
Honor
26:13
5:12 7:10 9:8 13:16
interfere
14:10,14,20 16:10
25:15
17:5 18:10 19:2
interference
20:18 21:1 22:8
1:15 2:4 6:5 7:19 19:13
23:14 24:1,12 26:8,15
20:5 21:5,7,7,10,15
28:7,17
21:18 23:2,4 25:13,17
Honorable
27:10
2:1,2
interference-in-fact
Honors
11:1,3,8,17 12:5 13:20
6:1 7:13 10:2 11:13,15
25:17
12:6,20 17:7,17 26:1 invention
hundred
22:14
13:2 15:15
involved
hundreds
23:2
12:9
issue
5:19 11:5,6 13:8 14:12
I
14:12,16 17:10,16,22
idea
18:11,12 24:18
7:18 24:14 25:4,9 26:2 issues
guidance
28:11
guide
19:10,11,11 21:5 22:7
22:14,20,22,22
PLANET DEPOS
5:16 10:9 20:1,7 25:6,8

28:3
J
J
1:22 2:5 30:4,16
JENNER
2:18
JUDGE
5:2 7:1,6 8:22 9:14,19
13:3,12,17 14:2,11,18
15:18 16:4,11,15,22
17:20 18:15,18 19:5
20:13,20 22:2,16 23:8
23:11,15,19 24:2,10
26:10,16 27:18 28:2
28:13,16,20 29:1
junior
1:9 2:3,12 13:7 15:8
26:13 27:5 28:18
K
Katz
2:2 5:2 7:1,6 8:22 9:14
9:19 13:3,12,17 14:2
14:11,18 15:18 16:4
16:11,15,22 17:20
18:15,18 19:5 20:13
22:16 23:8,11,15,19
24:2,10 26:10,16
27:18 28:2,13,16,20
29:1
King
3:12
knew
22:11
know
6:4,6,13,18 7:13 8:15
9:15,16 11:13,22 17:6
26:11
L
large
8:14 17:6
larger
8:1,3
last
Conference Call
35
13:8 14:12
late
5:5 21:2,2 25:21
leave
17:7,17
length
16:17
Lily
4:3
limit
5:9,19 11:10 12:21
14:8
limitation
11:17,19 21:12,13
limited
11:18 21:8,11,17,19
27:8
limits
5:11 9:21 10:3 14:15
18:3,20 19:4
list
11:16 25:1 26:19 27:4
27:16
listing
12:7,15
listings
13:2
little
5:15
Li-Hsien
4:3
LLP
2:18 4:7
long
15:14 25:7
look
5:3 10:17 22:5
looks
13:19
lrinlaures@marshal...
4:4
M
M
3:9
Margolis
2:16
MARSHALL
4:7
MASSACHUSETTS
1:5
material
16:16 30:6
materials
8:8 10:10,15
matter
21:8,20
mean
7:6
meaning
19:10 22:21
means
12:2
megabytes
9:4,13
mentioned
20:9
might
5:14,15 6:19 7:19
10:20 11:9,9 28:10
mind
19:13
Minnesota
2:7 30:5
moment
10:17
motion
10:5,7,12,14,22 12:5
13:22 14:13,17,20,21
14:22 15:3,4,10,16
18:3,5,11,21,22 19:4
19:6,8 20:2,12,15,17
23:5,6,12,14,16,21
24:9,16 25:17 26:6,6
26:12,12,15,20 27:15
motions
8:5,7,7 10:13,19,21
11:8,16 13:7,15 14:16
17:12 20:14 24:1
25:1 26:1,19 27:4,16
28:9,12
move
5:18 9:20 25:10
M.D
4:3
N
necessarily
7:13
necessary
17:13
need
7:13 10:6 11:2 13:1
14:7 18:5 20:19
needed
12:14 25:1
needing
8:12
never
20:22
next
2:22 3:22 7:11
nonconsecutive
6:20
none
11:19
North
2:19
Notary
2:6 30:4
NOTE
4:19
nothing
28:19
number
7:20 8:1,2 12:3 15:6
17:6,18
numbering
6:19,21 7:5,9
numbers
6:4,7,13,22 7:4
O
object
26:2
objection
7:4,17 13:5
occur
8:13
offer
8:17 27:6,17
PLANET DEPOS
offered
27:20
offering
19:20
office
1:1 21:9
often
6:7
oftentimes
11:8
Oh
23:19
Okay
7:1,6,10 8:22 9:8,18,19
10:2 13:3,12,17 14:2
14:11,18 15:18 16:15
16:22 17:20 18:15,18
19:5 20:13 23:8 24:2
24:10 26:16 27:18
28:2,2,15,20
one
5:16 6:11 7:21 8:18
11:5,11,17 12:4 14:12
15:8 16:12 19:8
25:11 26:10 28:7
oppose
25:16 26:12,14 27:9
opposing
27:7,13
order
6:3 13:18 14:21 17:2
17:11 18:4 20:18
24:3 28:4,10
organized
7:8
original
4:19
originally
21:6
other
5:11,16 10:5 11:11,14
11:20 12:14 22:12,16
27:12
Otherwise
13:1
P
Conference Call
36
page
2:22 3:22 5:9,11,19
9:21 10:3 11:9 12:21
13:20 14:8,15 18:3,20
19:3 26:19
pages
10:7,7,16,18,20 11:2,3
12:8,22 13:2,6,14,21
15:6,11,15 16:3,21
17:6,18 18:21 20:9,11
20:12 30:6
paragraph
26:22
parallel
22:19 23:1 24:7
parcel
25:9
part
20:16 23:4,14 25:9,22
27:15
particularly
15:21
parties
5:3,7 6:10,20 20:4
21:20
party
1:9,13 2:3,4,12 3:3
5:21 10:3 11:11,12
13:7,11 14:13,15,22
15:6,8 17:10 21:20
24:14,20 25:21 26:13
27:1,5 28:8,18
party's
14:20,21 26:19
Patel
4:5
patent
1:1,3,15 2:4 21:9
patentability
19:19
patentable
21:8,14,16,19 22:8,15
patents
1:6 6:11,14 7:20,20
Paul
2:16
PC
3:11 4:20
perfectly
8:19
period's
23:21
permitted
18:10
Phone
1:18 2:1
phonetic
26:13
Ph.D
3:7
piece
7:11
pieces
5:22
place
8:18 30:9
plan
26:12,14
play
11:14,15
plea
12:7
pmargolis@jenner.c...
2:17
point
9:22,22 22:9 26:18
27:12
portal
8:6,10,13,20 9:3,11
possible
7:19 8:5 10:10 28:14
practice
11:7
prefer
8:19
prepared
9:20
presentation
6:22
PRESIDENT
1:5
principle
13:10
prior
19:21 20:8
problem
16:18
problems
8:12
procedural
13:13 14:12,16 17:22
Procedure
4:21
proceedings
5:1 6:6 29:3
process
7:14
proffer
19:17 20:8
properly
25:22
proposal
9:9
propose
19:7 24:4
proposed
24:22 25:1 26:19,21
27:2
proposing
15:3 17:15 18:7,8,13
19:9,16 23:6 24:8
propriety
17:18
prosecution
21:3,3 22:1,3,13
provide
14:5,7 27:7,13
provided
8:9,10 23:20
providing
15:12 27:5
provisional
15:5,9,17 16:9,12,19
provisionals
16:14
Public
2:6 30:4
publicly
25:4
pull
27:9
PLANET DEPOS
purpose
27:8
purposes
27:12
pursuant
4:20
pursue
22:12
put
9:15 12:5 13:18 16:20
17:2 20:22 21:20
28:4
putting
6:11 20:21
Q
question
5:20 7:18 8:4 26:10
28:8
quick
28:8
quickly
5:18 16:3,21 28:14
quite
10:17
R
R
2:14 3:5
raise
5:16 7:16 25:8 27:16
raised
24:18 25:7 28:3
raising
11:17 12:4
rather
5:18 7:22 8:9,11 12:9
17:6
real
28:7
really
6:9 11:5,16 12:11,14
15:20
reasonable
13:18 17:8
reasons
13:13
Conference Call
37
received
22:12
reconsideration
24:17
record
7:7 29:1,2 30:7
reduce
10:10
referenced
5:17
regard
5:13,20 7:14 10:5,11
10:14,22 11:5,7 14:16
17:11 19:6 24:15
25:5,11 26:1
regarding
2:4
REGENTS
1:11
rely
21:21
remember
11:15 16:6
repeat
18:22
REPORTED
1:22
REPORTER'S
30:1
representative
12:13
request
6:9 10:3 12:10 13:6
18:19 21:6 22:10
23:9 26:22 27:1,9
requested
5:8 15:8 21:5 23:12
24:16,16 25:13 26:20
requesting
13:7 15:7
requirement
6:2 14:4 22:13
requirements
20:17
resistance
12:1
resolution
25:15
respect
15:1 18:6
respectfully
11:4
respective
15:22 16:2 20:4
respond
26:8
restriction
22:13
result
12:1 15:6
Richard
2:2
right
5:2 13:12,15 14:2,9,11
16:15,22 17:1,3,20
18:16,18 23:18 26:16
28:16
Rin-Laures
4:3
RNA
19:10 22:21,22
Rooney
3:11 4:20
round
13:19
rule
6:5 11:7
rules
4:21 6:17 7:15 24:14
S
same
16:5
Sandip
4:5
say
7:12,18 10:19,20 13:4
saying
13:11
says
18:5
Schafer
2:2 20:20 22:2
scheduled
5:5
section
15:10,19 18:4
seems
5:7 13:11,17 22:2
seen
12:7 26:11
senior
1:13 2:3 3:3 5:21 13:11
14:13,14,19,20,22
15:6 17:10 21:20
24:13,20 25:20 26:19
27:1 28:8
sense
7:8 13:3 14:3 18:19
28:10
sentence
16:20
separate
5:22
separately
18:12,16 21:14,16
22:15
series
6:14
service
7:15
set
22:19 23:1 24:15 25:9
several
13:1
should
7:12 17:15,21 21:14,16
21:19 24:6,21 25:2,6
25:16 28:3
show
12:11,12 16:1
side
6:6 7:21 8:6,7 10:5
11:13,14,18,20 12:14
simple
15:13 16:20
since
18:10
single
19:11 21:5 22:7,14,19
22:22
PLANET DEPOS
skipping
7:4
some
5:14 7:4 9:4,12 25:10
26:4 28:2
something
8:17 9:6,16 25:19
sometimes
8:13
sorry
19:14 21:2 22:20
sort
6:10,13,21
South
4:8
spatel@marshallip.c...
4:6
specifically
5:19 27:3
specification
16:6
specified
30:9
staff
9:6,10
staged
6:21
standing
6:2 18:4 20:18 24:3
start
14:19 26:4
started
12:5
starting
6:15
State
2:6 30:5
stated
27:1
statement
15:12,14 16:16
statements
15:11,13 17:19 20:10
STATES
1:1
status
27:18
Conference Call
38
stays
13:13
stenographic
30:7
Steve
5:13 28:18
Steven
2:14
still
19:3 27:13
streamlined
15:21
streamlining
20:6
Street
2:19 3:12
strenuously
26:2
structure
12:6
strybus@jenner.com
2:15
subject
21:8,19
submitted
11:9
substantive
12:1 17:9,16
substantively
13:9
substitute
14:13,17 15:3 18:3,5
18:22 19:4,7 20:17
23:5,7,14 24:9 26:21
27:15
substituted
18:13
substituting
17:22
suggested
21:7
suggesting
24:5
Suite
3:13
sure
9:10 17:13 20:13
3:6
together
take
6:11 12:6
8:12 9:9 17:1 28:3
told
taken
24:17
30:7
total
takes
10:7 20:11
12:8
towards
talk
14:8
5:9 14:15 17:21 19:3
Tower
talking
4:9
24:21
TRADEMARK
tangible
1:1
18:16
transcript
TECHNOLOGY
4:19
1:5
Travis
telephone
3:7
30:8
terminology
3:8
12:17
trial
thank
1:3 6:6
7:10 9:18 14:9 28:17
trouble
28:20,22
9:5
thing
truths
5:8 12:16
19:17 21:22
things
try
13:19 20:8 25:21
10:9,16 25:10 28:13
think
5:2,7,17 7:12 8:22 9:1 Trybus
2:14 5:10,12,13 7:10
11:21 12:14 13:12
9:8,18,20 10:2 13:10
14:4,5,12 16:4,6,16
13:15,16,22 14:9 17:3
16:22 17:8,9,14,16,21
17:5 24:10,12 28:17
20:10 21:18 25:6,8,15
28:18,22
25:20 28:2,3
trying
thought
25:8
6:19 12:10 28:10
two
three
5:11,22 8:7 14:15
5:22 10:18 12:22 15:4
17:12,15 18:8,15
15:5,16,17 16:13
typewritten
time
30:6
8:12,12 21:4,9 22:9
25:2 26:21 27:12
U
times
ultimately
30:9
17:10
Todd
under
3:5 9:21
todd.walters@bipc.c... 17:1 28:4
understand
T
PLANET DEPOS
7:7 8:15 9:9 11:6 23:22

unique
6:13
UNITED
1:1
UNIVERSITY
1:11,11
USB
8:10
use
8:6 27:11
usual
8:1,3
V
v
1:10
verbatim
30:7
VIENNA
1:11
view
9:22
Viewing
15:12
Virginia
3:14
voluminous
7:22
W
W
3:7
Wacker
4:8
waiting
27:21
waive
7:9
waiving
6:2
Walters
3:5 5:10 7:1,3,17 8:7
10:1 13:4,5 14:14,19
15:20 16:9,13,18
17:19,21 18:2,17 19:2
19:6 20:16,20 21:1
Conference Call
39
22:6,18 23:9,13,17,22
24:3 26:8,11,14,18
27:21 28:7,15
want
12:20 13:8 18:9,20
19:3 24:11 26:18
27:11
wanted
5:8,16 7:16 8:4 12:9
28:9
wants
14:15 28:6
wasn't
5:5
way
8:16 21:10 25:18
we'll
9:9,10 17:1
we're
8:19 10:15,17 11:16
12:4 15:16 17:13
18:10,13 19:21,22
20:1,18 23:6,17 24:5
24:8 27:13
we've
15:20
whatever
8:11
whittled
15:10
willing
8:20
Willis
4:9
wondered
6:1
work
9:7,10,16
worked
10:9 15:18
working
10:16
works
8:16
wouldn't
18:21
written
10:13
Y
Yeah
7:3 9:14 15:20 16:18
22:18 26:10
yesterday
5:6
1
1
10:15 15:2 26:21
10
10:6
10:05
29:3
106,048
1:15 2:4
11
26:19
112
19:22
12
7:20
120
20:12
13/842,859
1:12
135
20:15
135(b)
20:1
14/685,502
23:1 24:6 25:3 27:6
14/704,551
1:7
154.2.1
6:3
1737
3:12
2
2
10:22
2000
6:13
2016
1:19 2:5 29:4 30:9,12

2100
6:15
2200
6:16
22314
3:14
233
4:8
25
9:4,13 10:16
28
12:22
29
10:20 12:22
3
3
10:5,12 26:21 27:3
30
13:20,20
312-222-9350
2:21
312-474-6300
4:11
35
10:7 13:14
353
2:19
4
4
10:13,20,21
400
11:14
5
5
10:14,21 13:22 24:16
26:6
50
15:11 20:11
500
3:13
502
27:19
PLANET DEPOS
6
6
1:19 2:4 29:4 30:12
6th
30:8
60
11:14
60606
4:10
60654
2:20
6300
4:9
7
70
20:9
703-836-6620
3:15
72
12:8
8
8,697,359
1:6
8,771,945
1:6
8,795,965
1:6
8,865,406
1:6
8,871,445
1:6
8,889,356
1:6
8,895,308
1:6
8,906,616
1:6
8,932,814
1:6
8,945,839
1:7
8,993,233
1:7
8,999,641
1:7
Conference Call
40
9
9:33
1:20 2:5 5:1
PLANET DEPOS
Broad v. UC
CORRECTIONS TO TRANSCRIPT OF TELEPHONE CONFERENCE
HELD ON MAY 6, 2016
CORRECTIONS
REASON FOR
CORRECTION
PAGE
LINE
19
9:33 a.m.
10:33 AM Eastern Time
time zone
9:33 a.m.
time zone
AAA
AIA
transcription error
10
15
materials
claims
transcription error
12
plea
clean
transcription error
18
16
tangible
patentable
transcription error
19
17
truths
proofs
transcription error
19
22
arb
art
transcription error
21
22
truths
proofs
transcription error
26
13
no inter fact [phonetic]
no interference in fact
transcription error
28
backed it
acted
transcription error
29
10:05 a.m.
time zone
FROM
TO
-1-

CRISPR Patent Interference May 6 Conf Call Transcript

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

CRISPR Patent Interference May 6 Conf Call Transcript

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Filed on behalf of Senior Party

THE REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA,

Todd R. Walters, Esq.

By: Li-Hsien Rin-Laures, M.D., Esq.

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE

Interference No. 106,048

Date: May 9, 2016

By: /Todd R. Walters/

Date: May 9, 2016

By: /Li-Hsien Rin-Laures/

Interference No. 106,048

Transcript of Conference Call

Planet Depos, LLC

Worldwide Court Reporting | Interpretation | Trial Services

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD

THE BROAD INSTITUTE, INC., MASSACHUSETTS INSTITUTE OF

Patents 8,697,359; 8,771,945; 8,795,965; 8,865,406;

8,945,839; 8,993,233; 8,999,641; and Application

THE REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, UNIVERSITY

Patent Interference 106,048 (DK)

Commencing at 9:33 a.m.

Deborah Katz and the Honorable Richard Schafer and

Party regarding Patent Interference 106,048, on May 6,

2016, commencing at 9:33 a.m., before Caitlin J.

Albrecht, Notary Public of and for the State of

On Behalf of the Junior Party:

Steven R. Trybus, Esq.

Paul D. Margolis, Esq.

JENNER & BLOCK LLP

353 North Clark Street

Chicago, Illinois 60654

(APPEARANCES continued on next page)

On Behalf of the Senior Party:

Todd R. Walters, Esq.

Travis W. Bliss, Ph.D.

Erin M. Dunston, Esq.

BUCHANAN INGERSOLL & ROONEY PC

1737 King Street

Alexandria, Virginia 22314

(APPEARANCES continued on next page)

Li-Hsien (Lily) Rin-Laures, M.D.

Sandip H. Patel, Esq.

MARSHALL GERSTEIN AND BORUN LLP

233 South Wacker Drive

6300 Willis Tower

Chicago, Illinois 60606

The original transcript will be filed

with Buchanan Ingersoll & Rooney PC, pursuant to the

applicable Rules of Civil Procedure.

parties, they look like -- first of all, actually I

have to apologize that this conference call was

yesterday, so my apologies for that.

I wasn't aware of it until

I think the -- it seems like the parties

requested the call, and the first thing that we wanted

to talk about was page limit.

So who would like to

Is that -- Mr. Walters and Mr. Trybus,

have you two discussed page limits with each other?

Yes, Your Honor.

might be a little bit more extended.

And we have had a discussion with regard

If I might, some of the discussion on that