Interference No. 104,482
Tseng v. Doroodian-Shoja
The parties should note that if our holding of no
interference-in-fact is reversed upon judicial review, then the
contingencies triggering consideration of Tseng’s preliminary
motion 5 will have to be reassessed upon return of the case to
the board subsequent to judicial review.
Party Tseng has withdrawn its preliminary motions 2-4
(Finding 30). Consequently, those preliminary motions are no
longer before us for consideration.
It is no longer necessary to decide whether, given our
conclusion of no interference-in-fact, Tseng’s preliminary
motions 2-5 should be decided. Because any final hearing on
issues decided by a 3-judge panel would be in the nature of a
request for reconsideration, Charlton v. Rosenstein, No. 104,148,
2000 Pat. App. Lexis 4 (Bd. Pat. App. & Int. (Trial Section)
2000), and because neither party has requested reconsideration of
our decision of October 16, 2001, we designate the panel decision
of October 16, 2001 as final for purposes of judicial review. 3
3We recognize that Doroodian had filed a preliminary
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007