LOUIS et al. V. OKADA et al. - Page 4




            Interference No. 104,311                                                                                           
            Sauer Inc. v. Kanzaki Kokyukoki Mfg. Co., Ltd.                                                                     

                    10. Kanzaki has been accorded benefit of the earlier filing dates of Japanese                              
            applications 63-24193; 63-55828; 63-67005; and 63-79665. The earliest of such filing dates is                      
            February 3, 1988.                                                                                                  
                    11. On June 29, 1987, representatives from Sauer and representatives from Kanzaki had                      
            a personal meeting in the United States. At that meeting, it was generally agreed between the                      
            respective company representatives that the two parties will work jointly to develop a rear engine                 
            rider package including an IHT (integrated hydrostatic transmission). (Exhibit 2228; Exhibit                       
            2411 ý 8; Exhibit 2412 13; Exhibit 2413 $ 3; Exhibit 2407 17).                                                     
                    12. It was also agreed during the June 29, 1987, meeting that Mr. Joseph Louis of                          
            Sauer and Mr. Koichiro Fujisaki of Kanzaki would be responsible for the conceptual design of                       
            the 1HT. (Exhibit 2228; Exhibit 2411 T 9; Exhibit 2412 14; Exhibit 2413 T 4; Exhibit 2407 18).                     
                    13. Neither party represents that the agreement reached on June 29, 1987, to jointly                       
            develop a rear engine rider including an IHT was itself a binding contract with enforceable terms.                 
            Neither party represents that the agreement was in writing and neither party submitted a                           
            summary of each party's specific responsibilities, obligations, and commitments under the                          
            agreement. On page 44 of its brief, Sauer states that the parties werejointly developing an IHT                    
            pursuant to "what was going to be" a contractual joint venture. We find that the so called                         
            "agreement" was merely an intent to cooperate so long as either party saw fit to do so, with an                    

            eye toward possibly working out and executing an actual contract for joint venture at a later time.                



                                                          - 4 -                                                                







Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007