Interference No. 103,270
and it is not apparent to us, what that prejudice might be.
Since the Keith et al. motions were, No. 1, to designate
certain Coelho claims as not corresponding to the count or
proposed counts (Paper No. 12), No. 2, to substitute proposed
counts 1A and 1B for count 1 (Paper No. 13), and No. 3, for
judgment of no interference in fact as to proposed count 1B
(Paper No. 14), it is not evident how access to these motions
would in any way give Coelho an advantage in preparing his
preliminary statement. As Coelho states in his brief (CB-98,
99, original emphasis):
In preparing its preliminary statement, it
was in senior party's interests to allege
its earliest provable dates, which
necessarily
could only be determined by reviewing
senior party's own proofs. Junior party's
preliminary motions were directed to
designating senior party's cancelled claims
as not corresponding to the count,
substituting counts 1A and 1B for count 1,
and seeking entry of judgment with respect
to count 1B. Junior party has never
demonstrated how the opportunity to review
those motions could possibly have affected
the dates alleged in senior party's
preliminary statement. Indeed, it is
inconceivable how junior party could have
been prejudiced. Under no circumstances
would it have been in senior party's
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007