Interference 105,039 Paper No. 28
Andree v. Klintz Page 2
selective herbicides. That is, the compounds kill weeds, but are
well-tolerated by broad-leaved crops.
On April 17, 2003, junior party Andree filed Preliminary
Motion 1, seeking "judgment against Klintz on the ground that
there is, ultimately, no interference-in-fact.11 (Paper 27 at 1.)
As explained in detail post, we have interpreted Andree's motion
as seeking determinations that Klintz lacks an adequate written
description of the subject matter of claims 53-56, and that
Andree's claims corresponding to Count 1 are patentably distinct
from the remaining Klintz claims that correspond to Count 1.
Andree's preliminary motion has been taken up on an expedited
basis, and no other motions have been authorized. (Paper 23
at 8.) Senior party Klintz has not opposed Andree's motion.
For the reasons that follow, we GRANT Andree Preliminary
Motion 1.
Findings of fact
The following list of enumerated findings as well as
findings elsewhere in this opinion are supported by a
preponderance of the evidence.
1. Party Andree is involved on the basis of its United
States Patent 6,251,828 (the 828 patent).
2. Andree represents that its 828 patent issued from the
national stage (filed January 23, 1998) of its international
application, PCT/EP96/03223, filed July 22, 1996, which in turn
derives from its German application 195-28-186.1, which was filed
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007