RNAi Litigation

Archive for June 29th, 2012

[Case 1:11-cv-10484-PBS Document 73 Filed 06/25/12]

• Defendants admit that the Bass review was published on April 28, 2000. Defendants further admit that Dr. Bass commented on page 237 of the Bass review that “If RNAi involves an RNase III-like enzyme, it might explain why the small RNAs observed by Zamore and Tuschl range from 21-23 nucleotides. The initial cleavage might produce dsRNAs comprised of sense and antisense 23-mers, but the 3’ overhangs would be more accessible to single-strand-specific nucleases present in the extract, and trimmed to 21 and 22 nucleotide pieces.” Defendants further admit that the Bass review states at page 236 that “the identity of the RNAi nuclease has not been determined.” Insofar as the allegations of this paragraph purport to state legal conclusions, no response is required. To the extent a response is required, the allegations of paragraph 43 are denied. Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the remaining allegations set forth. On that basis, Defendants deny each and every remaining allegation contained in this paragraph.

• Defendants admit that an email bearing Dr. Tuschl’s name in the “From” line and Dr. Zamore’s name in the “To” line, and with a subject line that reads: “Re: slide for banburry [sic]” was attached to the October 7, 2010 Declaration Of Marco J. Read the rest of this entry »