UMass Preliminary Motion No. 2 (Paper 29) is denied.'
FINAL JUDGMENT
UMass is the junior party in this interference. UMass' Preliminary Statement (Paper 20)
does not allege a date of invention earlier than December 23, 1993, the date accorded to Infigen.
UMass Preliminary Motion to strike Infigen's accorded benefit has been denied. Thus, Umass can
not prevail on priority and there is no reason to proceed into a priority phase. It is appropriate to
enter judgment on priority against UMass at this time.
ORDER
It is
ORDERED that UMass Preliminary Motion No. 2 (Paper 29) is Denied;
FURTHER ORDERED that judgment on priority as to Count 1, the only count in this
interference, is awarded against junior party UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS;
FURTHER ORDERED thatjunior party, UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS, is not
entitled to a patent containing Claims: 1-14 of U.S. Patent 5,905,042 which correspond to Count 1;
FURTHER ORDERED that if there is a settlement agreement and it has not already been
filed, attention is directed to 35 U.S.C. § 135(c) and 37 CFR § 1.661; and
4 Since the UMass' motion did not establish prima facie entitlement to relief, it was unnecessary for us
to consider either Infigen's Opposition (Paper 33) or LYMass' reply (Paper 35).
-8-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007