Interference No. 104,192
Cragg v. Martin v. Fogarty
i.e., that if a range of dates is asserted, then the party
making the assertion is limited to the latest of such dates.
For instance,
if a party asserts that its invention was made in a period
from January through March of a certain year, then the
earliest date of invention the party is entitled would be
March 31st.
There need not be a rule to state that which is plainly
so, e.g., that what a party represents to an administrative
tribunal or an opposing party can be used against the party if
the representation is relevant to an adjudication of the
party’s own rights or the rights between the parties. Party
Cragg is not charged with a crime and is not being
interrogated in a criminal investigation such that it must be
“mirandized” –- warned that anything it says can and will be
used against it in a court of law -- before it makes a usable
statement. What is important is that party Cragg be given an
opportunity to explain or correct any misstatement it might
have made and which has been relied upon by either the
tribunal or the opposing party. There was ample such
opportunity in this case.
Concurrently with the filing of its opposition to
- 21 -
Page: Previous 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007