Interference No. 104,362
Lieberman v. Inoue
of a non-precedential opinion by SAPJ McKelvey in O’Young et
al. v. Powers et al., Interference No. 104,592, which deals
with a similar attempt to postpone the inevitable.” No such
copy, however, can be found accompanying the response.
We do not read party Inoue’s notice of intent not to
contest the interference as defined by count 1 as somehow
reserving the right to fight for another day. We also do not
read Inoue’s notice of intent not to contest the interference
as defined by count 1 as suggesting that Inoue will contest
this interference in another way without moving to substitute
a different count. Inoue’s notice of intent not to contest
the interference as defined by count 1 is a plain concession
of priority or abandonment of the contest with respect to the
subject matter of count 1 in this interference.
Inoue’s request for entry of adverse judgment is granted.
It is
ORDERED that judgment as to the subject matter of count 1
is herein awarded against senior party SHIGEKI INOUE, FUMIAKI
TSUDA, MITSUO NAGAI, TADAMOTO SAKAI and KAZUYUKI NAKAMURA;
FURTHER ORDERED that Shigeki Inoue, Fumiaki Tsuda, Mitsuo
Nagai, Tadamoto Sakai, and Kazuyuki Nakamura are not entitled
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007