On December 3rd, Senior Party Sigma-Aldrich filed its Substantive Preliminary Motion No. 2 in Interference No. 106,133 (which names the Broad Institute, Harvard University, and MIT (collectively, Broad) as Junior Party), asking the Patent Trial and Appeal Board to remove Broad's U.S. Application No. 15/330,876 from the interference, pursuant to 37 C.F.R. §§ 41.121(a)(1)(iii) and 41.208(a)(2).  The basis for Sigma-Aldrich's motion is that:

None of the claims in the '876 application recite further that the composition subsequently integrates a donor DNA sequence into the target DNA molecule, nor do they recite further that the composition alters the expression of the gene product of the cleaved target DNA molecule.  Thus, none of Broad's claims in the '876 application is substantially the same as (i.e., patentably indistinct from) Sigma's claims in the present interference, and thus none of the claims in the '876 application interferes with any of the claims of Sigma's involved Application 15/456,204.

Broad has filed a similar motion, Preliminary Motion No. 3 that asks the Board, inter alia, for the same relief with regard to the '876 application.  Under these circumstances, Sigma-Aldrich argues that:

While certainly not wholly reciprocal, there appears to be significant overlap in the parties' two proposed motions in this interference with respect to, inter alia, the '876 application and requiring a donor polynucleotide and [Homology Directed Repair] HDR following a DSB [Double-Stranded Break].  Addressing those overlapping issues in two parallel motions, rather than sequentially in the context of a single motion, presents the strong likelihood of significant redundancy and inefficiency, which are antithetical to the goals of USPTO interference practice and Sigma's objectives.

Accordingly, Sigma-Aldrich asked the Board to grant its motion.