Interference No. 103,805
Pierfitte v. Hines v. Maor v. Lange
In a communication dated August 15, 2000, the common
assignee of parties Maor and Lange elected senior party Lange
as the party entitled to priority between parties Maor and
Lange. (Paper No. 89). In a telephone conference conducted
on August 14, 2000, between administrative patent judge Lee
and respective counsel for the parties, junior party Pierfitte
represented that because it has not alleged a date in the
preliminary statement that is prior to the senior party’s
accorded benefit date, it is not entitled to priority and only
awaits entry of adverse judgment at the conclusion of this
interference when priority between the other parties is
resolved.
On August 15, 2000, senior party Lange filed a
miscellaneous motion for entry of judgment against the other
parties. With regard to junior party Hines, the motion
alleges that based on representations made in party Hines’
preliminary statement about when the invention was first
disclosed to another person (mid-November 1990), party Hines
cannot prove a corroborated conception prior to mid-November
1990, which is subsequent to party Lange’s accorded benefit
date of October 26, 1990.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007