Interference No. 103,805
Pierfitte v. Hines v. Maor v. Lange
Lange’s motion for judgment indicates that the substance
of the motion was discussed with counsel for parties Hines and
Pierfitte and that counsel for parties Hines and Pierfitte
have stated that they will not oppose this motion for
judgment. In a telephone conference conducted on August 17,
2000, at approximately 10:30 AM between administrative patent
judge Lee and respective counsel for the parties, counsel for
Pierfitte and counsel for Hines confirmed that they do not
oppose party Lange’s motion for judgment.
In the telephone conference of August 17, 2000, judge Lee
informed the parties that the lack of opposition to Lange’s
motion for judgment indicates intent by parties Pierfitte and
Hines to concede priority, and that if so, a concession of
priority or request for entry of adverse judgment should be
filed. Parties Pierfitte and Hines agreed to file by
facsimile such a paper that day.
On August 17, 2000, junior party Hines filed by facsimile
a request for entry of adverse judgment and junior party
Pierfitte also filed by facsimile a request for entry of
adverse judgment.
Both requests for entry of adverse judgment are granted.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007