SCHAEFER & BRISCOE, counsel for Sattler. Mr. Gerstenzang
advised that Sattler, the junior party, had no interest in the
matter.
Todd R. Walters, Esq., BURNS, DOANE, SWECKER & MATHIS,
L.L.P., was advised by e-mail on 12 July 2000, at
approximately 7:09 a.m, that senior party Liang need not take
further action in the interference. A copy of the e-mail is
attached (Paper 2).
In view of the state of the record, it is appropriate
that a judgment against Sattler be entered at this time.
B. Order
Upon consideration of the record, it is
ORDERED that judgment on priority as to Count 1, the
sole count in the interference, is awarded against junior
party ANDREAS SATTLER.
FURTHER ORDERED that junior party ANDREAS SATTLER is
not entitled to a patent containing claims 1-12 (corresponding
to Count 1) of U.S. Patent 5,739,399, granted 14 April 1998,
based on application 08/763,776, filed 11 December 1996.
FURTHER ORDERED that if there is a settlement
agreement, attention is directed to 35 U.S.C. § 135(c) and
37 CFR § 1.661.
- 2 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007