Interference No. 103,029
Pat. Int. 1984)(Motion to amend preliminary statement granted
based on evidence of the counsel's care in following
interference rules by conforming original preliminary
statement to proofs for each count).
In this instance, the first motion to permit the
amendment seeks to have the preliminary statement of the
senior party amended to include the allegation of derivation
by the junior party from the senior party. As we understand
the relevant time frame, the senior party testimony period
began on November 1, 1993 and was set to conclude on January
1, 1994. The motion to amend the preliminary statement was
made for the first time on December 23, 1993, toward the end
of the senior party’s testimony period and after inventors Yu
and Barnhouse had been deposed on September 13 and 28, 1993,
respectively. Thus, the
junior party’s argument that the request comes extremely late
in the proceedings has some merit. We would be inclined to
deny the motion based merely on the lateness thereof.
However, the senior party points to several
circumstances, that even with the exercise of due care, would
23
Page: Previous 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007