1 26). To the extent Andrx’s concession attempts to avoid interference
2 estoppel, we direct Andrx’s attention to Shustack v. Szum, 78 USPQ2d 1566
3 (Bd. Pat. App. & Int. 2005) and Eli Lilly and Co. v. Cameron, 61 USPQ2d
4 1863 (Bd. Pat. App. & Int. 2001).
5 It is:
6 ORDERED that judgment on priority as to Count 1, the sole count in
7 interference (Redeclaration, Paper 22), is awarded against Junior Party
8 Andrx.
9 FURTHER ORDERED that Junior Party Andrx is not entitled to
10 claims 1-9, 20-24 and 26 of U.S. Patent 6,869,615, all of which correspond
11 to Count 1.
12 FURTHER ORDERED that a copy of this paper shall be made of
13 record in the files of Andrx, U.S. Patent 6,869,615 and AstraZeneca, U.S.
14 Application 10/620,000.
15 FURTHER ORDERED that the parties’ attention is directed to 35
16 U.S.C. §135(c) and Bd. R. 205.
17
18
19 /Jameson Lee/ )
20 JAMESON LEE )
21 Administrative Patent Judge )
22 )
23 )
24 /Sally C. Medley/ ) BOARD OF PATENT
25 SALLY C. MEDLEY ) APPEALS AND
26 Administrative Patent Judge ) INTERFERENCES
27 )
28 )
29 /Michael P. Tierney/ )
30 MICHAEL P. TIERNEY )
31 Administrative Patent Judge )
2
Page: Previous 1 2 3 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013