Interference No. 104,362
Lieberman v. Inoue
LEE, Administrative Patent Judge.
JUDGMENT
On August 31, 2000, senior party Inoue filed a paper
(Paper No. 7) entitled “Senior Party Inoue’s Notice of Intent
Not to Contest the Interference,” in which it is stated:
“Senior party Inoue, Tsuda, Nagai, Sakai & Nakamura hereby
advises that it does not intend to contest the interference as
defined by count 1.”
The submission is regarded as a concession of priority
and/or abandonment of the contest with respect to the subject
matter of the count. Under 37 CFR § 1.662(a), it is also
treated as a request for entry of adverse judgment.
Junior party Lieberman has filed a response (Paper No. 8)
in which Lieberman objects to an alleged inference in party
Inoue’s concession of priority that Inoue can contest the
interference in some other way without filing a motion under
37 CFR § 1.633(c)(1) to substitute a different count. The
response further states: “Inoue cannot reserve its ‘right’ to
fight another day. The time to fight, if it is going to
fight, is now.”
Lieberman’s response also states: “I am attaching a copy
2
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007