Interference No. 103,636
opposition. That Hong might not prevail on its evidentiary
objection was readily foreseeable and something which Hong
should have guarded against.
Hong's failure to provide a complete opposition is
contrary to the public interest in avoiding piecemeal
prosecution of interferences, Pritchard v. Loughlin, 361 F.2d
483, 487, 149 USPQ 841, 844 (CCPA 1966), and to the spirit and
scope of the new rules which have been implemented to provide
"the just, speedy and inexpensive determination of every
interference." 37 CFR
§ 1.601. To allow a junior party such as Hong to piecemeal
its opposition is to allow a party the opportunity to control
a proceeding and to open the door to harassment of one party
by another by effectuating procedural delay. This would
diminish the APJ's control over an interference, contrary to
the provisions of 37 CFR § 1.610(c), and defeat the goal of
achieving the just, speedy and inexpensive determination of
interferences.
Whereas Hong's response to the order to show cause fails
to show good cause why judgment should not be entered against
it, because its arguments on the merits in its response are
entitled to no consideration, judgment against Hong under 37
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007