Interference No. 104,166
Patel v. Fuller
Accordingly, count 2 will be added, but it will read as
follows:
Party Patel’s claim 1 or party Fuller’s claim 80.
This interference is concurrently re-declared in a separate
paper to include count 2.
Party Fuller’s contingent preliminary motions 2 and 3 are
dismissed, because preliminary motion 1 has been granted.
Party Fuller’s miscellaneous motion to re-declare the
interference is dismissed, because the interference is being
re-declared to include count 2 because of the granting of
preliminary motion 1. Because party Patel did not respond to
the show cause order of September 1, 1998, entry of adverse
judgment against party Patel as to the subject matter of count
1, under 37 CFR § 1.640(e), is appropriate.
As to the subject matter of count 2, entry of adverse
judgment against junior party Patel is also deemed appropriate
at this time, in light of the indication from party Patel’s
counsel, prior to their withdrawal from representation in this
case, that "Mr. Patel advised Philip G. Meyers, an attorney at
Gardere & Wynne, that he did not wish to maintain the patent
or continue this interference," and in light of party Patel’s
- 4 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007