by another under 35 U.S.C. 102(g)." The entry of a judgment
in the interference is entitled to issue preclusion effect.
Coakwell v. United States, 292 F.2d 918, 130 USPQ 231
(Ct. Cl. 1961), made applicable to the Federal Circuit by
South Corp. v. United States, 690 F.2d 1368, 215 USPQ 657
(Fed. Cir. 1982) (en banc).
vi. 37 CFR § 1.662(a) [Rule 662(a)] provides in
relevant part:
A party may, at any time during an interference,
request and agree to entry of an adverse judgment.
* * * * *
Upon the filing by a party of a request for entry of an
adverse judgment, the Board may enter judgment against the
party.
b. Discussion
It appears that O'Young's assignee, Texaco, Inc., no longer
has a commercial interest in the invention claimed in the O'Young
patent involved in the interference. Lack of commercial interest
in an invention is a legitimate reason for requesting entry of an
adverse judgment--at least by a junior party. 1 However, a junior
party cannot hold a senior party hostage on the issue of priority
1 A lack of interest by a senior party patentee would not per se be a legitimate basis for requesting entry of an
adverse judgment. Rather, the senior party could elect not to participate in the interference and leave the junior party to
its proofs on the issue of priority. Under those circumstances, the board would determine, essentially ex parte, whether
the junior party had established priority vis-a-vis the senior party's filing date.
- 3 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007